Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Dunfermline and District Traction Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

LIBERIA.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government is aware of a proposed Danish-German agreement for large monopoly concessions for roadways, public works, forests, lands, and minerals in the Republic of Liberia; whether he can say if, under this agreement, an obligation is placed upon the Liberian Legislature to render illegal the commerce of British merchants in certain parts of the territory; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): His Majesty's Government are aware that negotiations for a concession have been proceeding for some time between the Liberian Government and a Danish-German group, and have seen a draft of the concession. My latest information is to the effect that this draft has undergone considerable modifications and in particular that those provisions which would be calculated to produce the situation referred to in the second part of the question have been, or will be, deleted. At the same time I shall continue to watch the situation closely and shall not hesitate to invoke, if necessary, the Anglo-Liberian Treaty of Friendship and Commerce of 1848, which provides for the liberty of British subjects to trade in Liberia.

Mr. WHITE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the date at which this proposal comes into operation?

Sir J. SIMON: I cannot give information as to that.

FRANCE AND CHILE (AGREEMENT).

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ascertain and state the details of the commercial agreement which is being or has been arranged by the Chilean Government with France which will facilitate the release of a portion of French frozen credits?

Sir J. SIMON: I understand that an agreement between France and Chile for the setting up of what is called a "compensation office" between the two countries was signed last week. While I have not yet received full details, I understand that the practical value of this arrangement depends upon the surplus which normally accrues from Chile from French imports of Chilean nitrate and copper; and that the sums to be devoted to the liquidation of French frozen balances will therefore be derived entirely from French purchases of these two commodities, particularly the former.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why our Foreign Office did not take initiative similarly in relation to commodities which interest us?

Sir J. SIMON: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his former experience, will know that it would not be a matter entirely for the Foreign Office. The Treasury, of course, and the financial interests of the country are involved. If I am asked whether a similar treaty has been negotiated, I must have notice of the question.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that under the Foreign Office there are commercial commissioners abroad, and does he not think that such an official or the Foreign Office should have taken the initiative?

IMPORT DUTIES (COLONIES).

Mr. BERNAYS: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which Colonies, during the 12 months preceding
Ottawa, duties have been raised covering imports from the United Kingdom, and the class of goods thereby affected?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, customs duties occupy a pivotal position in Colonial finance, and the revenue necessary to balance the Budget depends largely on customs returns. In the 12 months preceding Ottawa customs duties were increased in the following Colonies: British Guiana, British Honduras, Cyprus, the Gambia, the Gold Coast, Hong Kong, Jamaica, certain of the Windward and Leeward Islands, Malta, Mauritius, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, the Straits Settlements, Trinidad. In some cases the increase was only in the duties on such luxury articles as alcoholic liquors and tobacco, but in others a more general increase was necessary. Where a preference is in force the margin of preference has been increased proportionately to the increase in the rate of duty.

Mr. BERNAYS: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state, with reference to imperial preferences granted by Colonial Governments, in what instances such preference has been given, respectively, by lowering existing tariffs or by heightening existing tariffs against foreign countries?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The earliest preference granted by a non-self-governing Colony was granted in 1900. Preferential tariffs have been introduced in various Colonies at various dates since then and preferences so granted have been varied from time to time. It would obviously be impossible to examine all these alterations with the object of answering the hon. Member's question, but, broadly speaking, the choice between the two alternatives has depended on the revenue exigencies of the moment.

Mr. BERNAYS: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how this country is to judge the results of Ottawa if this very important information is not available?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it will judge the results of Ottawa by the increase of trade which is obtained.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Is it the case that a number of the Colonies have
raised their tariffs against foreign importations as the outcome of the Ottawa Conference?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There have been some cases where a lower rate of duty prevailed in which an increased rate of preference has been given to this country by raising the duty against foreign countries, and I am perfectly prepared at any time and in any place to defend that action.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Has not this form of preference been approved for over 30 years by all Governments?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, that certainly is so—and not least by the right hon. Gentleman's Government.

OVERSEAS DEPENDENCIES (CUSTOMS TARIFFS).

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is a comprehensive official list of Customs Tariffs of the non-self-governing colonies, protectorates, and mandated territories available to the public?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Customs Tariffs of the various British Oversea Dependencies, corrected in accordance with the information available in the Colonial Office up to the beginning of June, 1932, are contained in the publication, Colonial No. 72, entitled "Customs Tariffs of the Non-self-governing Colonies, Protectorates, Mandated Territories, etc." which may be purchased from His Majesty's Stationery Office, price 5s. 6d. It is hoped to reprint that publication, with amendments, annually. In the interim I understand that the Department of Overseas Trade is prepared to answer any specific questions regarding modifications in tariffs since the print was published.

TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS (REDUCTIONS).

Sir H. SAMUEL: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Trade which of the countries with which the Government are about to enter into negotiations with a view to securing reductions in their tariffs upon British goods are parties to the systems of commercial treaties which include the most-favoured-nation clause, and which would require them automatically to extend equally to other
countries whatever concessions they may make to the United Kingdom?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I understand that each one of the countries with which it is proposed to negotiate in the immediate future is a party to commercial treaties containing a most-favoured-nation clause which would have the effect referred to by the right hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BRITISH CLAIMS, MANCHURIA).

Mr. CHORLTON: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take steps specially to urge the settlement of those British claims in Manchukuo, which are of long standing, through the Japanese Government or other responsible authority?

Sir J. SIMON: It is not clear to me what particular claims my hon. Friend has in mind, or whether they are among those which have been submitted to the committee refererd to in my answer of the 31st October. If my hon. Friend can furnish me with details I will make inquiry. In general, I can assure him that all legitimate British claims will continue to be pressed in such manner as seems most suitable and effective.

Mr. CHORLTON: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Japanese Government accept responsibility for British claims in Manchukuo; and, if not, which authority does and can he obtain settlement from them?

Sir J. SIMON: The committee which is now considering these claims was set up by the governing authorities in Manchuria for the express purpose of settling the claims, with the obvious implication that those authorities recognise responsibility for meeting properly established claims. The question of the responsibility of the Japanese Government has not arisen.

Mr. CHORLTON: Then may I ask if the responsibility is with the new Government? Have they accepted it?

Sir J. SIMON: The committee to which I have just referred was set up by the governing authorities in Manchuria.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Lord SCONE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that large sums of Brazilian paper money have been deposited at the Banco do Brazil, by the instructions of the Brazilian Government, in connection with various defaulted Rio de Janeiro sterling loans representing British investments; and if he will inquire as to when any payment from these deposits will be made to the investors, who are meanwhile receiving no income from their investments

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. Since the reply given to my Noble Friend on the 24th of October, Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company, the official fiscal agents for the British investors in these loans, have issued a statement on the present position, which appeared in the press on the 29th of October, stating that the direct negotiations which have been proceeding between the official fiscal agents and the representatives of the State of Rio de Janeiro were suspended during the recent revolt in Sao Paulo, but that it is hoped to resume them at an early date, and that their result will be communicated in due course. In view of this statement I do not consider that an inquiry of the nature proposed in the second part of the question would serve any useful purpose.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could not an arrangement of the kind which has been made between Chile and France be equally well made between our Government and the Brazilian Government in connection with the importation of coffee into this country?

Sir J. SIMON: I must have notice of that question. It is a serious matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH CHARTERLAND EXPLORATION COMPANY.

Mr. STUART: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what action he proposes to take in regard to Mr. Justice Maugham's report, dated 13th July last, following his inquiry into the claims of the North Charterland Exploration Company (1910), Limited?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The inquiry to which my hon. Friend refers was held on behalf of the Government of Northern Rhodesia in order to investigate
certain claims affecting land in the Protectorate, which could not be tried in the High Court owing to the Crown having succeeded upon a demurrer that an Order in Council made in 1928 under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act was a complete answer. One of the chief objects of this inquiry was to enable the claim of the North Charterland Exploration Company against the Crown to be fought out and decided as if it were an action between two ordinary litigants. I am advised that the effect of Mr. Justice Maugham's answer to question 4 of his terms of reference is that, if the North Charterland Exploration Company had been in a position to sue the Crown in proceedings in which neither any privilege of the Crown, nor any Order in Council had been relied on, they would have failed in their action. As their claim has been disposed of in law, I, as responsible for the administration and financial control of Northern Rhodesia, am bound to treat the report as a final determination of the matter.

Mr. STUART: Has not the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of the commission, which finds that the company had just ground for making complaints and will he agree either to reopening the inquiry or to laying the papers?

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the allegation in the Press to-day that the court was misled as to the non-availability of certain material witnesses?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As to the second supplementary question, if any charge is made against the Attorney-General and the Treasury Solicitor in the conduct of the case, that charge should be made here and addressed to the Attorney-General. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees.

Mr. KNIGHT: I was merely calling attention to the allegations.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I quite appreciate that. If any such question is put here, it should be addressed to the Attorney-General, who had full charge of the case, and it will be dealt with fully. As to the first supplementary question, I think I fully disposed of it in my answer. I decided that on the whole it would be a reasonable thing to let this case be tried out before a commissioner exactly as it would
have been tried if it had been a case between two private individuals, each of them being entitled to rely on any rights which an ordinary private litigant would have. That was a very considerable concession for the Crown to make. That has been done. I am advised that the finding of the court in the Inquiry would in an ordinary action have been a judgment for the defendants—that is, the Crown—in the action, and I think the House will agree that that finally disposes of the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (COMMISSION).

Mr. CHORLTON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he proposes to fill the vacancy on the commission that has just left for the West Indies; and if he will consider the claims for transport as a predominant factor, particularly air services between the islands?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I very much regret to say that Sir Sydney Armitage-Smith died on Monday last. The other members of the commission, who are due to sail on the 9th of November, are General Sir Charles Fergusson and Sir Charles Orr. In view of their wide experience and qualifications I have no doubt that they are fully equipped to discharge their mission with complete success, and I do not consider it necessary to add another member. The commission will no doubt give due consideration to the importance of transport.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS LIMITED (SUBSIDY).

Mr. PERKINS: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total amount of subsidy paid to Imperial Airways for their last financial year?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The total subsidy paid to Imperial Airways in the last financial year amounted to approximately £467,000, Of this sum £77,000 was contributed by the various African Governments and Administrations in respect of the England-South Africa air service.

NATIONAL FLYING SERVICES.

Mr. PERKINS: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is the intention of the Government to grant subsidies to any of the flying clubs connected with National Flying Services?

Sir P. SASSOON: As indicated in the reply to my hon. Friend's supplementary question on the 26th October no formal application has as yet been reecived from the parent company or from any of its constituent clubs. In these circumstances the question becomes hypothetical, and I can only say that any application will be considered on its merits, if and when it is put forward.

HEATH BROW, HAMPSTEAD HEATH.

Mr. LEWIS: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he has any statement to make as to the progress of the negotiations between the Air Ministry and the London County Council and the Hampstead Borough Council as to the use to be made of Heath Brow, Hampstead Heath, and the extent to which the provisions of the Hampstead and Highgate town-planning scheme are to be disregarded?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am glad to say that an agreed settlement of this question has been reached. The building is to be used as a town headquarters and officers' mess for No. 604 County of Middlesex Auxiliary Air Force Squadron and this should not affect the amenities of the district. It has been arranged that the plans of the small additional building which it is proposed to erect within the grounds shall be communicated to the London County Council and the Hampstead Borough Council for their concurrence.

TRANSPORT.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: 16.
asked the Minister of Transport how many sets of automatic traffic signals have been installed in London; whether he is satisfied that these signals have been erected in the right positions; and whether he has yet received any report as to their efficincy?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): There are traffic control signals in operation at 30 intersections in Greater London, 18 of which are included in the Oxford Street scheme. Light control signals require an authorisation under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, before they are brought into use and this is only issued when I am
advised that the signals are in appropriate positions. I have received reports as to the installations which have been in use for some time and these show that the signals are proving themselves efficient in operation and of considerable value from the point of facilitating traffic and ensuring safety.

Major THOMAS: 18.
asked the Minister of Transport whether uniformity is being maintained with regard to the erection of traffic light-signals throughout the country?

Mr. PYBUS: Yes, Sir, except that in some cases somewhat larger lenses than normal have been used.

HIGHWAY CODE.

Major THOMAS: 17.
asked the Minister of Transport what steps have been taken throughout the country to define clearly main roads and byroads; and whether instructions can be issued that by-road traffic must give way to main road traffic?

Mr. PYBUS:: The highway code directs that a driver on a minor road when approaching a major road should go dead slow and give way to traffic on it. Highway authorities are already fully empowered to mark the distinction between major and minor roads at road intersections by means of a sign which has been approved for the purpose.

Major THOMAS: Is the. Minister aware that many accidents take place owing to the fact that by-road traffic does not give way?

Mr. PYBUS: Yes, Sir. I propose to review again the whole question when I see the report of the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs.

ROAD ACCIDENTS (INQUESTS).

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport in how many cases his Department, or any other Department, has used the powers conferred by Section 23 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and instituted an inquiry following a coroner's inquest after a fatal road accident, as is the practice after fatal accidents in mines or in passenger trains?

Mr. PYBUS: I have caused inquiry to be made into a large number of accidents, particularly those in respect of which there was reason to suppose that
the condition of the road or a mechanical defect in the vehicle has been a contributory cause. Summaries of these investigations appear as appendices to the annual reports on the Administration of the Road Fund and of the Proceedings of the London Traffic Advisory Committee.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Why is there not an inquiry into every fatal accident? Is not that the obvious way by which to discover a means of reducing the death roll?

Mr. PYBUS: The hon. Baronet will remember that about a week ago I informed the House that, in conjunction with the Home Office we were starting on a scientific basis an investigation of all fatal accidents, and I hope it will have the effect which the hon. Baronet desires.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Member not aware that as we are losing 6,000 human lives every year through these accidents, putting these inquiries into operation admits of no delay?

Mr. PYBUS: I do not need informing about that, and I deplore it as much as the hon. Baronet.

MOTOR DRIVERS (TEST).

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that the number of accidents has not substantially decreased since the passage of the Road Traffic Act of 1930, he will now consider the desirability of introducing at an early date legislation requiring all motor drivers to submit to a driving test?

Mr. PYBUS: The question whether applicants for motor-driving licences should be subjected to a driving test was discussed at considerable length when the Road Traffic Act, 1930, was before Parliament, and I do not see sufficient justification for introducing amending legislation on the point at the present time.

Mr. SMITH: Having regard to the growing number of accidents, will the Minister cause an inquiry to be made as to the percentage of these accidents attributable to novice drivers?

Mr. PYBUS: It is not a question of qualification for a driving licence which has been so much before the public. We have gone carefully into this point, but
I am not convinced that any substantial proportion of the accidents in this country is due to deficiencies on the part of drivers which would be revealed by driving tests.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is not that a further reason for having an inquiry into every accident to find out the cause?

Mr. PYBUS: Yes, Sir. That is the very inquiry that I am proposing to make.

WATERLOO BRIDGE.

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport what reports he has received from his technical experts as to whether further settlement of Waterloo Bridge is still taking place; and whether he is satisfied that no danger exists of the collapse of the bridge?

Mr. PYBUS: I am informed that the slow subsidence of parts of the structure still proceeds. I understand also that, in the view of the advisers of the London County Council, there is no immediate danger of collapse subject to the continued maintenance of the temporary supports, but that a permanent solution of the problem presented by this bridge cannot with safety be indefinitely postponed.

ROAD AND RAIL INQUIRY (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Sir BASIL PETO: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the first 41 weeks of this year gross railway revenues in this country have fallen by £11,500,000 as compared with the same period last year, following continuous heavy losses of traffic in the two preceding years; and whether he therefore proposes to introduce legislation early in the next Session of Parliament to carry out the recommendations of the Salter Conference>

Mr. PYBUS: I am aware that the figures published by the four amalgamated railway companies are in accordance with the statement contained in the first part of this question. As regards the second part, I am not in a position to add to the answer which I gave on 20th October to the hon. Member for the South Salford Division (Mr. Stourton), and of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Sir B. PETO: My hon. Friend has referred me to an answer to a question. I have already noted that question and I heard his answer, but I maintain that it does not answer my question. I want to know if we can have an assurance that, before the end of the Session, we shall have a statement with regard to what the Government intend to do to meet the situation?

Mr. PYBUS: I gave this House a definite undertaking that the local authorities, as well as other interested parties, would have their evidence and observations on the report fully considered. The last date for sending in those observations being the end of October, and to-day being the 2nd of November, I do not think I can make any declaration and at the same time carry out my undertaking.

Sir B. PETO: Cannot the Government sufficiently investigate the matter before the end of the Session?

Mr. PYBUS: I cannot answer that question.

Mr. THORNE: Is the Minister not aware that the great diminution in goods traffic is due to the Government's tariff policy? [Interruption.]

ROAD SERVICE LICENCES.

Mr. LEES-JONES: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport how many motor-omnibus proprietors have been compelled to cease operating their passenger-carrying services, and how many of their employés have been rendered unemployed, owing to the necessary licences having been refused by the traffic commissioners acting under the Traffic Act of 1930?

Mr. PYBUS: Records are not available which would enable me to furnish statistics on these points.

OMNIBUS STANCES, SCOTLAND.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport how many local authorities in Scotland have exercised their powers to provide omnibus stances and to charge rents for the use of the stances; and will he, in view of the need for economy, advise local authorities to arrange for the charging of rents for omnibus stances?

Mr. PYBUS: Three such authorities have exercised their powers under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to provide
stances. Reasonable charges may be made for the use of land off the highway for this purpose, but the law does not permit charges to be made for the use of the highway itself.

MOTOR CARS (ILLUMINATED NUMBER PLATES).

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to an internally-illuminated identification number plate for motor cars, invented by a member of the Hove Police Force, which would assist the police in tracing and arresting criminals in motor cars; and whether he will take steps to make its use compulsory?

Mr. PYBUS: My attention has been called to this device. Internally illuminated number plates are allowed under the regulations, but I do not feel justified in making their use compulsory.

Sir C. RAWSON: Has the hon. Member seen the device himself?

Mr. PYBUS: I stated that my attention has been drawn to this device and a report would be made to me thereupon.

Sir C. RAWSON: I understood the hon. Member to say that he had seen the device personally.

Mr. PYBUS: Oh, no.

MOTOR PARKING PLACES.

Captain HEILGERS: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to empower highway authorities to construct parking places at suitable intervals for motor cars and lorries desiring to stop on the trunk roads?

Mr. PYBUS: No, Sir. I should not feel justified at present in encouraging the expenditure of public moneys for this purpose.

GOODS VEHICLES (REGULATIONS).

Mr. HOLDSWORTH (for Mr. HEPWORTH): 15.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the existing regulations on goods vehicles are not unduly repressive; and whether, in view of the large number of convictions in respect of overloading, he will consider the advisability of examining the whole scale with a view to its possible alleviation?

Mr. PYBUS: I do not consider that the regulations with regard to the construction or use of goods vehicles are unduly repressive. My Department is always ready to discuss points of detail with the manufacturing and operating interests, and modifications are made as need arises. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, agree that the overloading of vehicles is not conducive to economy in highway maintenance or to the public safety and convenience.

(HIGH STREET, STRATFORD (IMPROVEMENT SCHEME).

Mr. THORNE (for Mr. GROVES): 29.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the distress caused by unemployment in West Ham and the need for the widening of High Street, Stratford, and seeing that Parliament has already sanctioned the necessary powers, he will sanction the immediate commencement of the whole of the work known as the red-line scheme, which has already been approved by the engineers of his Department?

Mr. PYBUS: I have already made a grant to enable one section of this scheme to be put in hand forthwith at an estimated cost of £70,000, and the work has been begun. The whole scheme is estimated to cost over £1,000,000, of which nearly 60 per cent. represents property. It cannot be regarded as specially adapted to provide employment, and I am not in a position to assist at present any other section of the work than that to which I have referred.

Mr. THORNE: Will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision, because there is a jam there on account of the immense amount of traffic which goes through the street? Such a scheme would be the means of providing work for the unemployed.

Mr. PYBUS: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that from the point of view of traffic consideration the scheme has my sympathy, but for the other considerations which I have mentioned in answer to the question it cannot be proceeded with?

SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME.

Mr. L. SMITH: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any outlay and, if
so, of what nature by the State is now being incurred in connection with the Severn barrage scheme?

Mr. PYBUS: No expenditure is being incurred in connection with this investigation.

NORWICH CONSISTORY COURT CASE (COSTS).

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 33.
asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, what was the total cost to the Commissioners of the recent case in the Norwich Consistory Court?

Mr. DENMAN (Second Church Estates Commissioner): Payments on account of fees and disbursements amounting to £5,500 have been made by the Commissioners, but the amount remaining to be paid is not ascertained, as the bills of costs have not yet been delivered to the Commissioners.

Sir A. POWNALL: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have any control at all with regard to these large bills presented to them?

Mr. DENMAN: No, Sir. Unfortunately the Commissioners are in the ignoble position of having to pay the piper without being able to call the tune. I understand that the matter is to be brought before the Church Assembly, and I hope that some procedure will be devised which will be less costly and less injurious to the Church.

HOUSING.

CLYDEBANK.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Department of Health for Scotland have refused permisnion to the Clydebank Town Council to proceed with their scheme for the building of 472 houses on the North Kilbowie site; and is he aware that the town council has expended £15,000 on the purchase and preparation of the site?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): In view of the number of houses already built and the existing economic condition of the burgh, my right hon Friend's predeces-
sor was not prepared to sanction a further building scheme of 470 houses. Sanction was, however, given for the immediate replacement of the 72 uninhabitable houses in the burgh, and the Department are prepared to consider sympathetically any proposals which the town council may submit for dealing with overcrowding. With regard to the second part of the question, the hon. Gentleman has, I am informed, considerably overstated the expenditure on the site, which has been, to date, £9,173. I understand that no expenses have yet been incurred in its preparation for building purposes.

RENTS.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that all sections of the community have had their income reduced by 50 per cent. since 1920, whereas rents have not been reduced, the Government will take immediate steps to reduce the rents of working-class houses in proportion to the ability of the tenants to pay?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Johnstone).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the rents fixed from 1919 onwards are wholly inconsistent with present-day conditions, and will he ask his right hon. Friend whether it is not now time, in the altered circumstances, either to change the terms of the present law or to provide some other opportunity whereby the situation might be dealt with?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If and when the Government decide to deal with this question, there will be ample opportunity of discussing it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, but can the hon. Gentleman inform the House when the Government are likely to be ready to deal with this question?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I cannot anticipate the programme for next Session.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising from the original reply, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is not aware that the landlords of this country had an increase
granted to them, of 48 per cent. as far as Scotland is concerned, because there was an increase in wages at that time? Now that there has been a decrease in wages, and everything else has been decreased but house rent, is he not going to consider the advisability of reducing rents to meet the power of the people to meet those rents?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I do not think that this is the time to discuss questions arising out of the Rent Restrictions Act.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask this question of the Prime Minister, who is in his place, because he gave a pledge to the country that he was going into this question of rents, which is one of the gravest questions so far as the working-class people of this country are concerned?

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: Will my hon. Friend draw the Minister's attention to the very urgent necessity for dealing with this question, since it is an undoubted fact that the rents of houses in this country are the most formidable burden that the working class have to bear?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is quite aware of the urgency of the matter.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can I have a reply from the Prime Minister? This is a more serious business than all the Ottawa that ever was.

SHEFFIELD.

Mr. PIKE: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Sheffield City Council refuse to allocate council houses unless the applicant can guarantee the possession of a certain income; whether he will state the minimum and maximum amounts that applicants with one, two, three, four, and five children, respectively, must prove as income; and whether he will withhold further grants until a full inquiry has been made?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend understands that there is a minimum standard of income which is used by the officers of the Sheffield City Council as a guide for dealing with applications for tenancy of council houses, but that departures from this standard are made where circumstances justify them. My right hon. Friend is not able
to give the information sought in the second part of the question. The management of houses provided by a local authority is expressly vested in them by Section 67 of the Housing Act, 1925, and my right hon. Friend is not aware that any of the conditions upon which subsidy has been granted to them has been contravened.

Mr. PIKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some 6,500 applicants for houses in Sheffield are in the precise position of the Minister himself, since, their applications having been turned down, they do not know, and cannot get to know in any circumstances, what level of income they must have in order to justify an application? Would the hon. Gentleman order an inquiry to be made, so that the public may at least be in a position to know exactly how much earnings they must have before they can have the key of a council house?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As I have pointed out many times, council estates are vested in the local authorities, and, if there is dissatisfaction in this respect, the tenants, as citizens, have an annual opportunity of expressing their opinion.

Mr. PIKE: 37.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state how many city councillors and corporation officials are tenants of the Sheffield Corporation housing estates; and by how much their income exceeds the amount which the authorities demand as a minimum income for its tenants?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend regrets that the information for which my hon. Friend asks is not in his possession.

Mr. PIKE: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the income of the holders of council houses is not beyond the limit laid down by that authority as the income to be possessed by a tenant of a corporation house?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has continually impressed upon local authorities the need for seeing that council houses do in fact go to the tenants for whom they were built.

Mr. PIKE: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Sheffield Corporation are carrying that policy into effect?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is not the only solution for the problem referred to in the question that Sheffield should build more houses?

POST OFFICE (AIR MAIL SERVICES).

Mr. HUTCHISON: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the regularity with which air mail services have operated during recent months, he will now consider the advisability of treating such mails as a normal facility provided by the Post Office and make arrangements for abolishing the complicated and high charges now imposed?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): It is true that during the summer months the air mail services have operated with a high degree of regularity; but I fear that, until the very wide difference between the cost of air transport and of surface transport has been substantially reduced, it will not be practicable to forward mails by air without the payment of additional charges.

Mr. LEWIS: 39.
asked the Postmaster-General the percentage by which the fees charged to the public for the use of the air mails exceed the charges made by the owners of the aeroplanes for carrying these mails?

Sir E. BENNETT: The rates of postage on air letters are so fixed as to cover as nearly as possible the cost of transport and of handling and similar operations in this country. It is impracticable to state the relation of the postage charge to the payments for air conveyance in the form of percentages, as they would vary according to the destination and weight of the letter and, in many of the services, according to fluctuations in the exchange.

Mr. LEWIS: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to state that, if the charges were lowered, the result would be a loss to the Post Office?

Sir E. BENNETT: Yes, Sir; I am prepared to make that statement.

COMMISSIONERS OF ASSIZE.

Mr. TURTON: 40 and 41.
asked the Attorney-General (1) how many commissioners of assize have, since October, 1931, been appointed to the North-Eastern and Northern Circuits; and how many to other circuits in England and Wales;
(2) How many commissioners of assize have been appointed since October, 1931; and what has been the expenditure entailed by such appointments?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): Four commissioners of assize have been appointed since October, 1931, at a total cost of £1,232 ls. 5d. These include the appointment of one commissioner for the Northern Circuit and one for the North-Eastern Circuit.

Mr. TURTON: Will the Attorney-General consider the advisability of appointing an extra judge to do this work at assizes, in order to add to the dignity of the Judicature travelling on circuit?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The question whether new judges should be appointed has often been discussed by the House. I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is in favour of it.

SUPREME COURT (NEW PROCEDURE RULES).

Mr. CHALMERS: 42.
asked the Attorney-General if he can yet estimate the success of the New Procedure Rules of the Supreme Court; what proportion of cases are tried under them; and whether any reduction in the cost of litigation results from their use?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for putting down this question. The New Procedure Rules are working smoothly and efficiently. Since 24th May, when the Rules came into force, 93 actions in the new procedure list have been tried, as against 347 in the ordinary list. Both the judges who are taking cases in the new procedure list are fully engaged upon them. Few taxations of costs have so far taken place, but from such information as is available it appears that some reduction in the cost of litigation has resulted.

Mr. CHALMERS: In view of that success, and of the apparent reduction in
the cost of litigation, will the Attorney-General consider extending these Rules to other forms of action, and particularly to the county courts?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will call the Lord Chancellor's attention to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 43.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that in some cases widows whose claims for pension have been rejected by the Ministry are not advised by his Department of their right of appeal against the decision to the independent appeal tribunal; and whether he will take steps to ensure that in every case these widows are advised of their rights under the War Pensions Acts and warrants?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The hon. Member would appear to have been misinformed. It is the practice of the Ministry to notify widows of their right of appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in all cases where an appealable issue is raised.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: When the widows' cases are turned down through ignorance of the way of putting their case, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman undertake that they shall be advised that they have a right of appeal to an independent Tribunal?

Major TRYON: Widows whose claims arise under Article 17B have a right of appeal, and it is notified to them. The others never have had a right of appeal.

DISARMAMENT.

Mr. AMERY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister in view of the imminent reassembly of the bureau of the Disarmament Conference, whether he can give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will not commit themselves to any such proposals as those now being put forward for the total abolition of military and naval aviation, coupled with international control of civil aviation, and for the abolition of warships over 10,000 tons without first affording Parliamentary opportunity for their discussion?

Captain GUEST: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that nothing shall be done at the forthcoming Disarmament Conference which will impair the proved value of the air arm as an efficient, economical, and humane method of maintaining peace and security in both India and the Middle East, without first consulting Parliament?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the new French disarmament plan has yet been considered by His Majesty's Government; and whether he will undertake to secure the approval of Parliament before our representatives at Geneva commit us to any restatement of Article 16 of the covenant, to any reversion to the Protocol de Genêve, or to anything that would extend the guarantees of Locarno to the rest of the frontiers laid down in the peace treaties?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As hon. Members are aware, the House has been kept fully informed of the policy of His Majesty's Government in respect to Disarmament. It is not intended to make any departure from the normal practice when Governments are engaged in important negotiations. I should add that His Majesty's Government have not yet received the full details of the new French disarmament plan to which my right hon. and gallant Friend the. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) refers.

Mr. AMERY: Are we to understand from that answer that the policy of the Government with regard to Disarmament will not go beyond the policy laid down in the White Paper presented to the House of Commons in the summer?

The PRIME MINISTER: I wish my right hon. Friend had given me notice so that I might refresh my memory as to what is in the White Paper, but the House knows perfectly well that, when Governments are engaged in negotiations like this, they have to use their judgment as to what the opinion of the House is, and when the negotiations have been completed, or at a stage before that if the Government wish, the Government communicate to the House what they are doing, and the House is then in a position to say either Yea or Nay in regard to that communication.

Mr. AMERY: The Prime Minister does not assume that the view of the House is that the Air Force should be abolished?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We have had a White Paper on the question of Disarmament, but we have had no paper on the question of Article 17, or the Government attitude towards the Protocol de Geneve. Is the practice hitherto adopted by the Government of refusing to commit this country to any further liabilities, military or naval, in Europe to stand?

The PRIME MINISTER: The House may be assured that the Government will not commit the country to any further commitment without the consent of the House.

Captain GUEST: Will the right hon. Gentleman state in more specific terms whether it is clear that nothing in the line of the abolition of the Air Force can possibly take place without the permission of the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government must be free to negotiate the abolition or the extension of anything, but the negotiations will be conducted with the full knowledge that final consent remains with this House.

Mr. ATTLEE: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that he will be in a position to make a fuller statement on Disarmament if the matter is raised in the near future in Debate in the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I could not say at the present moment.

Mr. LANSBURY: May we take it that, when the discussion on Disarmament takes place, either the right hon. Gentleman or the Foreign Secretary will be here to give as full information as is possible in the circumstances?

The PRIME MINISTER: When the question of Disarmament is brought before the House, the House may assume that a responsible Minister will be able to take part in the Debate.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Prime Minister see to it that he is not browbeaten by the armament ring?

Captain GUEST: I wish to extract one further word from the Prime Minis-
ter, that the House will not only be able to register consent but dissent if it feels so inclined.

The PRIME MINISTER: I said so—either Yea or Nay.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the questions put from behind him, and the spirit represented by them, are dissented from by a great mass of people in the country?

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. WHITE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if proposals for the international control of working hours are being considered by the Preparatory Committee for the World Economic Conference with a view to their inclusion in the agenda of the conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already announced, the. Preparatory Committee of Experts, which is to make a preliminary examination of the questions which will be submitted to the World Conference, only commenced their session on Monday last, and I am not yet in a position to indicate what particular subjects are likely to be included in the agenda.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Have the Government power to make suggestions to the Preparatory Committee, and, if so, would he consider the advisability of making this one of the prime questions to be dealt with by the Economic Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: My impression is that we have not power to make suggestions to the Preparatory Committee. At the same time, if any very important germane question regarding the work of the conference has been omitted, the Government or its representatives will certainly see that those questions are before it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough, in the circumstances obtaining here and in all parts of the world, to make representations so that this very vital question may form part of the agenda?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will take note of the suggestion.

Mr. WHITE: If the Government are not entitled to raise questions to be put on the agenda, with whom does that power he?

The PRIME MINISTER: The agenda has been handed over to the experts committee.

UNEMPLOYED MARCHERS (DISTURBANCES).

Commander MARSDEN: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the men charged in the disturbances over the week-end belonged to the hunger-marchers visiting London?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): In connection with the disorders on 27th and 30th October, five men belonging to one or other of the contingents visiting London have been charged.

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make concerning the disturbances in Whitehall last night?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The demonstration yesterday was organised by the National Unemployed Workers Movement in support of the petition which the movement had announced their intention of presenting to Parliament at any cost. Meetings were arranged in about 10 parts of the Metropolis, and a mass demonstration was held at Clerkenwell Green, from which it was proposed to send a deputation to the House of Commons. These meetings broke up, in accordance with pre-arranged plans, into small parties and proceeded to Parliament Square and the vicinity. Parliament Square was cleared by the police and a large crowd then assembled in Trafalgar Square and around Charing Cross. Around Charing Cross the crowd became disorderly and it was necessary for the police to draw their truncheons to disperse the crowd. The difficulty in clearing Trafalgar Square was increased by the arrival of demonstrators who came in small parties from Clerkenwell Green. In all about 3,000 persons were present in the Square and they became disorderly. Five windows were smashed, but the police drew their batons and restored order, a number of arrests being made. Later,
more of the disorderly element returned to the Square and it was again necessary to disperse them, but this was done without batons being used, some further arrests being made.
At about 7 p.m. an attempt was made by small groups of demonstrators on the south side of Westminster Bridge to cross the bridge; they were turned back. Shortly after 9 p.m. a crowd began to collect about Westminster Bridge, and the bridge was cleared. Some damage was done to shop windows and iron railings in Lower Marsh, Westminster Bridge Road, and Belvedere Road. The windows of seven premises in the vicinity of Gray's Inn Road and Holborn were also damaged. Earlier in the evening a small party of demonstrators which was about to become disorderly in Edgware Road was dispersed by the police without difficulty, and later on four arrests were made in Praed Street. Forty-one arrests were made in all. Twelve police officers were injured, none seriously, and 32 other persons. As on previous occasions, despite the appeal of the Commissioner of Police, the work of the police was increased by the presence of large numbers of spectators.

Mr. LAMBERT: How long is this hooliganism to go on?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that the House and the country realise the iniquity of these proceedings and we will consider any means by which we can bring them to an end.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider advising his Government to relieve the necessities of the unemployed in order to save these disturbances?

Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these unemployed are now stranded in London and are very anxious to go back home; and in order to avoid any further disturbance is there no possibility of arrangements being made to send them back?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I should think that it is obvious that those who were responsible for bringing these people here should get them back again.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these individuals have a real grievance and that they are
expressing it. Now that they are in gaol and, according to his own report, that very little or no damage has been done, and no one has been seriously injured, will not this great, powerful Government extend the hand of friendship?

FIREARMS (CONTROL).

Mr. LEWIS: 51.
asked the Home Secretary if he has any proposals to make to the House for further restricting the purchase or hire of firearms?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I stated in reply to a question on the 27th October, I have this matter under consideration. My hon. Friend may rest assured that if find reason to think that the existing law requires strengthening, I shall not hesitate to ask Parliament for further powers.

Mr. LEVY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the strength of the present law, and, if so, how does he account for the prevalence of so many firearms among the people to-day?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have already stated to the House, I am considering the question.

TITHE RENTCHARGE (COLLECTION, WALES).

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 52.
asked the Home Secretary what is the total amount of tithes payable to the Welsh Church Commissioners from the diocese of Bangor and how such tithe was collected during the year 1931; whether any advertisement appeared inviting applications for the post of collector; if so, in what papers such advertisement appeared; and whether there are any special reasons why Messrs. Boscawen and Richmond, of Wrexham, in the diocese of St. Asaph, were appointed to collect the tithes of the diocese of Bangor?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The total annual commuted amount of tithe rentcharge payable to the Welsh Church Commissioners from the diocese of Bangor is approximately £34,600, the present value of which is approximately £36,350. During the year 1931, this tithe rent-charge was collected directly from the Commissioners' head office. No advertisements were issued inviting applications
for the appointment of new collectors. The firm in question was appointed as it was already collecting tithe rentcharge of the commuted value of approximately £2,300 a year for the Commissioners. They have handled this work very efficiently, and possess an intimate acquaintance with agricultural conditions in North Wales.

Mr. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Boscawen is a brother of the Chairman of the Welsh Church Commissioners?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware of that; I know nothing of it.

UNEMPLOYMENT (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. LAWSON: 56.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Royal Commission on Unemployment has yet reported; and, if so, when its findings will be published?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The Commission has presented two Reports, one signed by the majority, and the other by the minority. There will be no delay in publishing the Reports, and my right hon. Friend hopes that it will be possible to place copies in the Vote Office on Monday next.

Mr. LAWSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have yet considered the Report, and, if so, can he state their policy?

Mr. HUDSON: No one in the Government has yet seen the Report, and, as I understand that it runs to over 500 pages, it will take some time to deal with it.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider posting the Report so that Members may have it in their hands before the Debate on Unemployment?

Mr. HUDSON: As I have already said, we hope to have the Report available in the House on Monday.

Sir P. HARRIS: Monday is rather late. Could not the Report be posted to Members so that they may receive it on Saturday evening?

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not possible to have the Report in the Vote Office by Friday so that we can look at it over the week-end?

Mr. HUDSON: Every effort has been made to expedite publication; otherwise, it would not have been possible to have it ready by Monday.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (TRANSFERRED OFFICERS).

Mr. L. SMITH: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of civil servants who have been transferred from other Departments to the Department of Customs and Excise during each of the past 10 months?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I will with permission circulate the information required in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. SMITH: Can my hon. Friend say whether this process of transfer is being carried on regularly during ensuing months whenever a vacancy arises in the Customs Department, instead of appointing new civil servants?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I confined myself to answering the question of my hon. Friend about the past. If he will give me notice about the future, I will give him a further answer.

Following is the information:

The numbers of civil servants transferred from other Government Departments to the Department of Customs and Excise during each of the past 10 months are as follow:

Month.


Number transferred.


January, 1932
…
…
11


February, 1932
…
…
277


March, 1932
…
…
162


April, 1932
…
…
173


May, 1932
…
…
64


June, 1932
…
…
33


July, 1932
…
…
50


August, 1932
…
…
52


September 1932
…
…
20


October, 1932
…
…
14


Total
…
…
856

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (CORPS OF CUSTODIANS).

Mr. HICKS: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the various grades and wages that will be paid to the new corps of custodians to be employed in the Houses of Parliament?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The grades and rates of remuneration of the new custodian staff will be as follow:

1 Superintendent—£300 per annum.
3 Inspectors—£200 per annum.
1 Assistant Inspector (for night duties)—£3 10s. per week.
40 Custodians—£3 per week.
In addition, the staff will receive a free issue of uniform.

Mr. HICKS: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether persons appointed to the staff of custodians of the Palace of Westminster who are in receipt of pensions will be subject to the rule of the Civil Service that their pay and pension on the new appointment shall not exceed the pay received prior to being pensioned?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The provisions of the Superannuation Acts which the hon. Member apparently has in mind apply only to Civil Service pensioners reemployed in public departments. They do not apply to police pensioners or to naval, military or air force pensioners.

Mr. HICKS: Am I to understand that pensions are taken into consideration in arriving at the amount of wages to be paid to these men?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The wages are paid upon merits.

Mr. HICKS: And independent entirely of the question of pensions? Do I understand that it would be possible for pension and wages to exceed the amount previously paid under the existing scheme?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I prefer that my hon. Friend should put down that question.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Is it possible, in the.new corps, for wages to be paid to a man who has a pension?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. I have indicated that fact in my answer.

Mr. GRENFELL: Will it in fact be the case that they will be drawing pensions?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: When my hoc. Friend asks that question—I asked him to give me notice—I shall be only too happy to answer it.

LAND VALUES RATING BILL,

"to enable local rating authorities to levy rates upon land values," presented by Colonel Wedgwood: to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to he printed. [Bill 129.]

Orders of the Day — OTTAWA AGREEMENTS BILL.

Further considered in Committee [Progress, 1st November].

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Duration of Agreements for purposes of Act.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 11, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that the Agreements are fulfilled in accordance with the terms of this Act, each of the scheduled Agreements shall remain in force for 20 years from the date fixed by the Treasury for the commencement of the operation as defined in Subsection (2) of Section 14."—[Mr. Doran.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Doran), is out of order.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 11, line 35, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that no such order declaring any such Agreement to have teased to be in force shall he made unless the Government of the country have been given three months' notice of the intention of the Treasury to make such order.
This Clause deals with the duration of the Agreements and gives power to the Treasury to discontinue any Agreement if they are satisfied that the conditions are not being carried out. Will any notice be given to the country or countries affected before any Agreement is cancelled? Although we object to the nature of the Agreements, we take the view that, if an Agreement has been arrived at, some notice should be given to the countries concerned before the Agreement is completely broken. Sub-section (3) of this Clause says that:
if the Treasury, after consultation with any Government Department which appears to them to be interested, are satisfied that the Agreement is not being fulfilled on the part of the country between the Government of which and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom the Agreement was made,
they may make an order cancelling the Agreement. It then proceeds to say that if subsequently they are satisfied that the Agreement is being fulfilled, it can be
renewed. That Sub-section appears to us to be difficult of interpretation and our Amendment has been put down for the purpose of finding out what is really meant by the determination of an Agreement. Will sufficient time be given to the other country concerned to realise that the Agreement is being cancelled?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): This Clause, as the hon. Member has pointed out, provides for the determination of any Agreement if it has been broken by one of the parties to it. If the Agreement has been broken, the Agreement has lapsed, and there would seem to be no reason why the duties should be kept on. My hon. Friend asks that when another country has broken its Agreement we should give them three months' notice. Surely, my hon. Friend will see that that is hardly a reasonable proposal to make. The other party is the offending party, the breach of the Agreement is a fact, and there would seem to be no reason why that other country should continue to enjoy the benefits of the Agreement. All that would result from the Amendment would he that the duties would be kept on for a longer period than necessary. I am sure that the hon. Member would he the last person, in view of his opposition to these duties, to desire that.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: The Financial Secretary's explanation does not deal with the question at all. The position that is apparently contemplated here is that some other country, one of the Dominions, may be considered by the Treasury, after consultation with some other Government Department, not to be fulfilling the Agreement. That is obviously a question which may be liable to different interpretations by the two sides to the Agreement. What we are most anxious to avoid is such action being taken in this case as was taken in the case of another Dominion, namely, that on the very day when it is alleged the Agreement has been broken, some punitive action may be put into force. The revocation of an order under this Agreement would be a punitive action. We are anxious that there should be full opportunity to discuss the alleged breach before such action is taken. The Financial Secretary says: "If they have broken their Agreement." It is obvious that in those circumstances the question would arise, have they broken their Agree-
ment? These Agreements may be undesirable, but if we are going to have Agreements with the Dominions, surely it is necessary to have some means of deciding first, before you take action as if they have broken the Agreement, whether they have actually broken it. There is no provision for referring the matter to arbitration or getting the dispute settled in any way.
This Clause gives the Government of this country, through the Treasury, power immediately to step in and say: "We think you have broken the Agreement and we intend to revoke the duties." That would be a most undesirable state of affairs, in view of inter-Dominion feeling. The Financial Secretary has appealed to my hon. Friend by saying: "Would you not be very glad to see the duties taken off?" We should he very glad to see the duties taken off, but not if the price is to be fresh trouble with a Dominion—an accusation against this country of unfairness in the treatment of a Dominion. Three months longer period of duties might he far less harmful than getting into such a position, say, in regard to Canada. As the matter stands, the Treasury might say: "We have consulted the Board of Trade, and we are of opinion that something that you are doing in Canada is not in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. We are not going to write to you and say that we think your Agreement is being broken and to ask you to explain. We are not going to give you any time." The Treasury can thereupon make an order revoking the Agreement immediately they have come to their conclusion. Surely, the Financial Secretary does not desire that that should be the case, or to give the impression in the Dominions that that will be the case. It may be that he will say: "We shall never do that. Of course, we shall wait three months." I expected him to say that, and I was surprised that he did not say it. Of course we should wait.
We must give the other side an opportunity of explaining their case, whether they are right or wrong, and if necessary we must go to arbitration to decide who is right and who is wrong before we take action. If the Clause passes in its present form one must inevitably think that the Treasury are going to act as the final judge, exactly as the Government have done in another case with another
Dominion. Therefore, I beg that the hon. Member will make it perfectly clear that should any dispute of this sort arise it will not be dealt with by the Treasury out of hand, but that proper time will be given for the matter to be discussed with the Dominion concerned and explanations given which may possibly get rid of the trouble. We have suggested three months as a convenient term. Some period of time ought to be allowed after the alleged breach has been communicated to the Dominions, during which nothing will be done pending the receipt of the explanation.
I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with the reasonableness of what I am saying. He may take the view that it is not necessary to put such a provision into the Act, but I think he will agree that ours is a reasonable attitude. Although we are opposed to these Agreements, we are anxious that no more harm than necessary should be done to Imperial relations. We believe that, without altering the Agreement, some provision might be made to make it plain that proper and due time will be allowed for the discussion of alleged breaches before any action of the kind suggested is taken by the Government in this country.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: The hon. and learned Member for Bristol East (Sir S. Cripps) has made a substantial point. I want to look at the reverse side of the shield. The Canadian Government are passing similar legislation to that which we are passing through this House, and the Australian Government are also passing similar proposals although they have been delayed through the illness of the Treasurer. They too will have some arrangements for withdrawing the preferences in the case of an alleged breach. Let me give one example of the kind of difficulties which might arise in regard to the interpretation of the Agreements. Important powers are vested in the Government for arranging a meat agreement. If there is a suspicion in Australia or in New Zealand that we are not carrying out our side of the Agreement an Australian or a New Zealand Government might withdraw the preferences. If we give this power to the Treasury here and there is an equivalent power in Australia or in Canada, I can understand that there may be causes of irritation and friction. The procedure we are making.
here must be followed by the Dominions. I know how sensitive they are to any action taken by the British House of Commons sand how easily they misunderstand things which we do. It is wise when we are legislating for a period of five years, during which there may be a change of Government in this country and in one of the Dominions, to draft a Clause which is foolproof and friction proof.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: When an hon. Member on, this side of the House moved an Amendment with reference to iron and steel, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs gave him a lecture on trade union practice in order to show him that he was wrong. I propose to give an illustration from trade union practice in order to support the Amendment. In the iron and steel trade we have a joint industrial council, and the two most important points in the constitution are that the men are not permitted to down tools and the employers are not permitted to close down the works without first referring the dispute to the joint industrial council. We had a dispute the other day in a works in which eight mills operated. There was a dispute in one of the mills. The employers closed down the other seven mills. The men said that the employers had broken the constitution, and the employers claimed that they had not. The matter was referred to the joint industrial council. The same thing can happen politically. We may say that one of the Dominions have broken the Agreement, and they may say that they have not. The proposition here is that some time should elapse in order that the matter may be discussed and settled amicably between the two parties. If there is any dispute the matter should be settled amicably, before there is any proposal to revoke the Agreement in any way.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), in moving the Amendment, simply invited an explanation from the Financial Secretary, and my hon. Friend gave the explanation. It did not satisfy the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). If he had put his questions before my hon. Friend spoke, they would have been answered by the Financial Secretary. I
am responding to the invitation addressed directly to me by the hon. and learned Member to say whether the Amendment is a reasonable one or not. I do not think it is; but that does not say that the considerations adduced by the hon. and learned Member were not reasonable considerations. Let us see what possible alternative conditions there are under which the Amendment might become operative. You have here a series of Agreements between various Dominions and the United Kingdom, and it is perfectly clear that in the interpretation of these Agreements there may from time to time arise perfectly innocent differences of opinion between the two Governments. What would be the procedure on the part of the British Government if such a difference of opinion should arise? I am not speaking for any British Government except the present Administration, but, as far as this Government is concerned, I say without hesitation that we who have gone through so much trouble to try and make these Agreements with the Dominions are not likely to upset and wreck them by any premature, hasty or ill-tempered treatment of any innocent difference, or reasonable difference, of opinion which may arise between us. Of course, we should not straightway say that we are satisfied that the Agreement has been broken and ceases to be in force. That is not the way we should go about it. We should exhaust all possible means of coming to an agreement with the Dominion Government concerned before we took such action as that.
But one must contemplate the possibility that the Government, with which we have concluded these Agreements is replaced by some other Government which takes an entirely different view, and which sad s: "We did not agree at the time. We declared that we would not be bound by the Agreements that were made. Now we have come into office we are not going to be bound, and we cease to fulfil our side of the Agreement." What would be the result of the Amendment in such circumstances as those I One side would have refused to fulfil its obligations, and the other side would be compelled to fulfil its obligations for another three months. That is not a reasonable position, and that is the reason why I say that, while I am entirely in sympathy with the hon. and
learned Member that we should not hastily take action of the kind open to us under this Clause, yet, at the same time, I do not think that we should be bound to give the three months' notice which the Amendment proposes.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I gather now that this Sub-section was put in in intelligent anticipation by the right hon. Gentleman that before very long he would be turned out, and a party would come in in this country, as in other countries, which is not pledged to carry out these Agreements. Of course, we have not had that explanation before, but, as the right hon. Gentleman clearly understands that that may happen in this country and in some of the Dominions, it seems to be very remiss that in making the Agreements they did not provide that both parties to them should give reasonable notice, because now the right hon. Gentleman says that if one of the Dominions declares at a moment's notice that the Agreement may come to an end, we shall have to follow suit; that as we have not provided at all for any notice from the Dominions to set aside the Agreement and upset all our trade, we shall merely have to do the same. It seems to me that something very curious happened at Ottawa, because although surrounded by a crowd of witnesses and business experts, no one seems to have suggested that this might happen. I should have thought that the least that should have been done would have been to provide for these Agreements to be terminated at reasonable notice.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: The observations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are of very great importance. He contemplates, I will not say the probability, but the possibility that in one or other of the Dominions a party may come into power which has in advance

declared it would not be bound by the Agreement, and that that party, having formed a Government, would thereupon break the Agreement, because there is no provision in the Agreements themselves to allow them to be terminated on short notice being given, except in the case of the Indian Agreement, which has a Clause in it that the Government of India may give six months' notice of termination. Consequently, if there is a change of Government in Canada, Australia or any of the other Dominions, and the mandate from the electors of those countries is that the Agreement should no longer be observed, the only course (he Government leaves open to the Dominions is that the Agreement should be broken in defiance of the signature of the previous Government, and in defiance of any statutory sanction.

This is another illustration of the contention which we have repeatedly pressed upon the House as to the great danger which is embodied in these Agreements, for in our similar case, if a General Election is fought upon this issue—and it must be an issue at the General Election—and if another Parliament comes in with another policy from this, the Government dependent on the confidence of that Parliament can do nothing except break the Agreement and repudiate it, although the term of five years has not elapsed. This illustrates more clearly than ever the strength of the contention we have pressed upon the House, but which has received no response from any quarter, that it would be most desirable in the general interests of this country, of the Dominions and the Empire, that there should be a proper provision for termination at the end of six months' notice.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 249.

Division No. 346.]
AYES
[4.4 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar. South)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hicks, Ernest George


Aske, Sir Robert William
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, George Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Holdsworth, Herbert


Banfield, John William
Evans. R. T. (Carmarthen)
Jenkins, Sir William


Batey, Joseph
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Buchanan, George
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Cape, Thomas
Grithffis, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kirkwood, David


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Cove, William G.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Leonard, William


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Logan, David Gilbert


Curry, A. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Lunn, William


Daggar, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


McEntee, Valentine L.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Maxton, James
Thorne, William James
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Parkinson, John Allen
Tinker, John Joseph
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Price, Gabriel
White, Henry Graham



Rea, Walter Russell
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. D. Graham and Mr. John.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Albery, Irving James
Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Martin, Thomas B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Fermoy, Lord
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Millar, Sir James Duncan


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leollin
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Milne, Charles


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Atholl, Duchess of
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moreing, Adrian C.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Bateman, A. L.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Munro, Patrick


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Graves, Marjorie
Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Grimston, R. V.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersfl'ld)


Blindell, James
Guy, J. C. Morrison
North, Captain Edward T.


Borodale, Viscount
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nunn, William


Boulton, W. W.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Patrick, Colin M.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Harbord, Arthur
Pearson, William G.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Penny, Sir George


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Hartland, George A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks. E. R.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon. Totnes)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Headlam, Lieut,-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
 Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pike, Cecil F.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Powell Lieut,-Col. Evlyn G. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hornby, Frank
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Horsbrugh, Florence
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Burnett, John George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsden, E.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Carver, Major William H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Castlereagh, Viscount
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Jamieson, Douglas
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Jennings, Roland
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Charlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Christie, James Archibald
Ker, J. Campbell
Rosbotham, S. T.


Clarke, Frank
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ross, Ronald D.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Kimball, Lawrence
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Colfax, Major William Philip
Knight, Holford
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rutherford. Sir John Hugo


Cooke, Douglas
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Salmon, Major Isidore


Cooper, A. Duff
Law, Sir Alfred
Salt, Edward W.


Copeland, Ida
Lees-Jones, John
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Leighton. Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cranborne, Viscount
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Craven-Ellis, William
Levy, Thomas
Savery, Samuel Servington


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lewis, Oswald
Scone, Lord


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Crossley, A. C.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sheppereon, Sir Ernest W.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Dickle, John P.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Doran, Edward
MacAndrew, Lieut.-col.C.G. (Partick)
Smith-Carinqton, Neville W.


Drewe, Cedric
MacAndrew, Capt. J.O. (Ayr)
Smithers, Waldron


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Duggan, Hubert John
MacDonald, Capt. P.D. (I. of W.)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Douglass, Lord
McEwen, Captain J.H.F.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major Alan
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
McLean, Dr. W.H. (Tradeston)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Elmley, Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Emmott, Charles E.G.C.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart




Sutcliffe, Harold
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Thompson, Luke
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wells, Sydney Richard
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Weymouth, Viscount
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Todd, A. L. S (Kingswinford)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.



Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Whyte, Jardine Bell
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Turton, Robert Hugh
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Major George Davies and Lord




Erskine.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Provisions as to orders.)

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I beg to move, in page 12, line 1, to leave out the word "Any," and to insert instead thereof the word "No."
First may I ask for your guidance, Captain Bourne, in this matter, as this Amendment is closely related to other Amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. A. Roberts) I As this is consequential to those Amendments, will you permit a general discussion on one or other of these Amendments for the convenience of the Committee?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I take it that the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) is referring to a similar Amendment, in page 12, line 12, to leave out the word "Any," and insert the word "No," and the consequential Amendment which comes in between. I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we took a general discussion on the principle raised in this Amendment now, because the hon. Member will observe that there is on the Order Paper an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) to leave out Sub-section (3). If the Committee decides that Sub-section (3) stands part of the Clause, obviously the hon. Member's next Amendment must fall. Therefore, I think it is desirable to discuss the principle on this Amendment, but I intend to call the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bodmin which raises another point.

Mr. WHITE: The object of the Amendment and subsequent Amendments is to deal with the methods by which Orders are to he made under the procedure set out in the Bill—Orders in relation to Customs being placed before the Commons House of Parliament for confirmation after having been made, and those relating to powers taken
to frustrate State action against the Preference given to the Dominions, or under the wheat quota proposals to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, subject to their being confirmed within 28 days. The object of the Amendments is to reverse this process and to provide that before any Order shall come into force it shall be discussed and approved by the House of Commons in the one case, and by both Houses of Parliament in the case of Orders of a wider character. In considering the method by which these Orders are to be applied the Committee would be well advised to give close attention to the circumstances in which the Orders are likely to be made. The whole policy of the Bill is not only admitted, but is proclaimed, to be an experiment which will take some time to work out, the results of which no one can foretell with certainty. But this experiment is to be subject to review in some period in future, and then the disadvantages—the Debate so far has revealed that very serious disadvantages may arise—will be offset against the advantages which may accrue, and on the result of this investigation the experiment will be judged.
The only thing which can be said with certainty is that many of these proposals will work out in a way which is quite unforeseen now. I submit that it is very desirable that before Orders are made Parliament should have the opportunity of considering and assessing the results of the experiment to date, in relation to that particular section of trade for which Orders are being made. I believe, if it is proposed to alter the policy of this Bill or to reverse it by means of an Order made under the machinery of this Clause, the House should have an opportunity of considering the circumstances in which that Order is to be made, and whether it should be made at all. It is a condition of any experiment scientifically made that it should be carried out under some sort of control. An uncontrolled experiment becomes a speculation. In this particular case the
subjects of the speculation would be the British importer, the consumers in this country, and the manufacturing interests not only in this country but over the whole world.
A feature of these Debates has been the large number of questions which have been left in a state of considerable uncertainty. Amendments have been moved which have been supported by Members of all parties. They were considered to be of great substance by those who took part in the Debates. They were rejected, not on their merits, but because they were inconsistent with the Agreements made at Ottawa. In regard to linseed and wheat and other matters there was a very acute discussion, and matters were left in a state which was nebulous and unsatisfactory to those Members who took part in the discussions. Last night the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in discussing a matter which arose on Clause 5, said that one of the objects of the Bill was to bring some order into a disordered state of international trade. That is certainly a fine ideal, and I hope that the trading community in this country and the world are very much gratified by the statement of my hon. Friend. But it seems a strange claim to make on behalf of a Bill which is proposing to divert, and may still further divert by the Orders which we are now considering, the greater proportion of the trade of this country.
I can conceive nothing which is more likely to cause chaos in the trading community than the making of Orders in the method prescribed here. Orders may be launched like a bolt from the blue without any warning, interfering with contracts or with goods in course of transit. In connection with the meat trade they may affect large quantities of meat on the ocean. They will affect interests not only in this country, not only the consumers here, but people in the most remote parts of the earth. It is essential that before these Orders are made the consumers and all those interested should have an opportunity of expressing their views through their representatives in this House. It is indeed obvious that we are considering in this Bill the greatest experiment in trade which has been made
outside Russia. When variations or fluctuations of this policy are to be made by Order of the Board of Trade, or by the Treasury or in any other quarter, Parliament should have the facilities suggested in the Amendments for giving consideration to these matters. I would draw attention particularly to the kind of effect which will be produced by the procedure outlined in this Clause in relation to the type of Order which will be made under Clause 5, Sub-section (4). There the Board of Trade:
may make regulations prescribing.…the conditions which must be fulfilled in order to establish that goods have not been grown, produced or manufactured in a foreign country with respect to which an Order is enforced under this Section.
It goes on:
It shall be lawful for the Commissioners.…to require the importer to furnish to the Commissioners, in such form as the Commissioners may prescribe, proof that the conditions so prescribed by the Board have been fulfilled.…

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Are we going to have a discussion again on the second Amendment referring to Orders with regard to meat and Russia, in which case one would deal with them on the second Amendment, or are we going to deal with both sections of this Clause now, with taxation and meat and Russia? Which does my hon. Friend desire?

Mr. WHITE: So far as I am concerned I have no intention of repeating my speech. I was following the Ruling of the Chair that we should have a general discussion on this Amendment. I was for the moment going back to the terms of the regulations which are proposed under the Orders under Clause 5.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going a little further than I indicated earlier. His two Amendments raise the question whether Orders should come into operation after having been made or after having been approved by this House. I think that principle should be discussed on this first Amendment, but in view of a later Amendment to leave out Sub-section (3) it would be undesirable now to go into details of what may happen under Sub-section (3).

Mr. WHITE: I was only trying to point out the class of Order with which we were dealing under the Clause to which
my Amendment particularly refers. I will not pursue the matter further, except to say that the general position of the Board of Trade in the matter is that they may require a trader to furnish information and to fill up forms with regard to certified imports which they themselves have said cannot possibly be carried out. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen), and other Members representing Merseyside, proposed an Amendment with the object of securing certain things in regard to Canadian wheat. That. Amendment was received by the Financial Secretary with considerable sympathy. At least the Financial Secretary indicated clearly that if it had been within his power it would have given him great satisfaction to accept it. But the hon. Gentleman said that the Customs must be in a position to carry out a check. The hon. Gentleman said that the Customs had gone into that sympathetically, and they had found it impossible to administer a decision of that kind.
Under the Orders which may be made under this Clause the Board of Trade or any other authority is in fact requiring the trader to comply with something which the authorities themselves have declared it impossible to carry out. It is pre-eminently to be desired that in the interests of all those who may be concerned in these Orders there should be an opportunity of Parliamentary discussion before Orders are put into operation. So far from producing order these proposals are likely to make conditions completely chaotic. For example the Board of Trade may require a purchaser of a cargo of timber or wheat or hides, or whatever it may be, to comply with their requirements, and it might be utterly impossible for the trader to give a certificate that these particular products were in fact the products of a given country. The task of the Customs would be impossible.
4.30 p.m.
These are some of the very grave practical difficulties which I can see arising from application of the methods prescribed in this Clause of the Bill. Someone may say that if there is any uncertainty with regard to the date of application we shall have an immense amount of forestalling, that traders or importers or those who bring goods to this country will immediately get to work
and bring into the country large quantities of goods to forestall the operation of an Order. If this Amendment were carried that would not arise. Whoever was concerned in promoting the Order would come to this House and would say, "We propose on a certain date to make an Order, and it will be discussed in this House on a given date before the Order is actually made." I have said enough to show that the method which it is proposed to carry out under these Orders is really impracticable or hedged about with very great difficulty. So far from being an encouragement to trade the proposal of the Clause seems likely to have the opposite effect. It will have the effect of causing losses to many traders. We have already seen how the Orders made under the Import Duties Act in the early part of this year caused devastating losses to be suffered by merchants and others who were trying to bring goods into this country at the time when those orders were made. This proposal in the Bill introduces an element of uncertainty and will discourage enterprise by making trade conditions more difficult and hazardous than they are to-day.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) put the answer to the Amendment into the mouth of the Government. As he would have it, the stable door should be bolted after the horse has gone. The effect of the Amendment would be to allow forestalling. The hon. Member said that these Agreements represented the biggest trade experiment that the world had ever seen with the possible exception of Russia. Well, we want the experiment to be a success; we must take every precaution to see that it is a success, and the object of the Clause is to ensure that, if anybody tries to spoil the experiment by forestalling, we shall slam the door—to use the hon. Member's own words, "like a bolt from the blue." The door must be shut before there is any chance of flooding this country with imports and forestalling the Orders. I do not suppose that the hon. Member's intention was to move a wrecking Amendment, but the effect of his Amendment would be as I have described it. The last thing we want to see is this experiment wrecked by such means.
The hon. Member also made the point that Parliament ought to have the opportunity of discussing these Orders, but allowance is made in the Clause for the discussion of an Order within one month, and surely that is a good enough precaution. The whole trouble is that the hon. Member looks at this matter from quite a different point of view from that taken by the Government. He talked about the difficulties of the consumer and the difficulties in trade. There may be difficulties in trade but the hon. Member always puts the consumer first, and I submit that that is putting it the wrong way round. Man is a producer before he is a consumer. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, until a, man has earned or produced goods or services, he cannot consume, and it is necessary that we should first of all get the producer on to his feet. He is the man who has to be looked after first in the present situation. I hope that the Government, for those reasons alone, will refuse the Amendment.

Mr. HANNON: We have heard an extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). If there is anything calculated to make this Measure wholly unsatisfactory to the manufacturing community, it is an Amendment of this kind. We have had most depressing experience of the effects of forestalling in connection with the Import Duties Act. We have in this country a number of patriotic people associated with the importing side of our trade who do not hesitate to sacrifice all patriotic principles for the possibility of a profit. As a consequence, before the Import Duties Act came into operation, large quantities of imported goods were brought into this country, thus helping to retard materially the advantages to our wage-earning population, which would have accrued earlier had the Act operated more effectively and rapidly. I hope everything that can be done will be done to prevent importers of foreign manufactures bringing large quantities of goods into this country in that way. There should be no provision in this Measure which would enable a process of forestalling to take place by the retardation of Orders in order that they should be discussed in Parliament and render inoperative what we are now doing. I am surprised that the hon. Member for East
Birkenhead, who is a respected Member of the House of Commons and one whose opinion upon these matters are always received with attention, should make such a preposterous proposal as that contained in the Amendment.

Mr. WHITE: If my hon. Friend only read the Amendment he would see that its effect would be to shorten the procedure possibly by as much as three weeks.

Mr. HANNON: Having read the Amendment I take precisely the opposite view.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: I should like to comment on the extraordinary statement which has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen). According to him the process of finding sustenance by humanity is reversed, because he tells us that we must first be producers before we can be consumers. I always thought that man could not produce unless he was first able to consume.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: May I ask the hon. Member whether he eats the banana before he picks it from the tree?

Mr. ROBERTS: I do not often pick bananas from trees, but if we go back to the beginning of things I think we find that the first man ate the apple first and then proceeded about his lawful occasions. My objections generally to this Clause are on the same lines as those indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White). I quite agree with all he has said regarding forestalling. The Amendment would enable the Government to get the consent of the House of Commons to an Order if the House was willing to give their consent, and to have the Order put in force within a few days. Under the Clause, as it stands, the Government issue the Order through the appropriate Department and it may be, not 28 days, but a matter of weeks and months before the House of Commons is asked to express any opinion. But the main point of my objection is in the wording of the Clause itself:
Any order made by the Treasury increasing or reimposing any duty of customs.
It is possible that I may have been badly brought up, but I have always been
taught that the Commons House of Parliament is the sole authority for imposing taxation on the people and I object strongly to the power of taxation being taken away from the House of Commons—which according to this proposal is merely to be asked afterwards whether it approves or not of what has been done. I know that this point has been raised before but it seems to me that further attention should be directed to what appears to be a very serious infringement of the rights of the House of Commons if any executive or any bureaucratic authority is to have the right to increase duties before asking the House of Commons for its consent.
We have in the past gone through great troubles to secure this privilege of the House of Commons, but the present House of Commons does not seem to be worrying very much about the infringement of those privileges. Personally, I worry considerably about that question and I think that there are other Members in all parts of the Committee who object to this proposed procedure on that ground. I observe from questions on to-day's Order Paper that the Prime Minister is being besought by strong supporters of the Government to see that certain action is not taken without first affording Parliament an opportunity for discussion. That request appears in two questions to the Prime Minister to-day. It is pretty obvious that the trend of this Government's policy is in the direction of taking away from the House of Commons the authority which rightly belongs to it and we are asked in this Clause to confirm the principle that seven men can go to Canada and enter into an Agreement which binds this country, and that the House of Commons is to accept the whole Agreement as it stands without the alteration of a, comma. As the principle which the Government seem to be pursuing is anti-democratic I strongly object to the provisions of this Clause and support the Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: May I point out to the hon. Member that the procedure whereby duties may be imposed by Order was not invented by this Government or in the lifetime of this Parliament. It was invented by the right hon. Gentleman who was until some 16 months ago the Leader of the hon. Member——

HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: No.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It was after the right hon. Gentleman had been guilty of that sin that the hon. Gentleman again accepted him as leader. He committed the sin in 1921.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: He was your leader then.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But despite his iniquities he was forgiven by the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] I do not know why the hon. Member for Wrexham cannot indulge in his own interruptions upon this point. I think he is capable of doing so without praying the assistance of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harcourt Johnstone). This discussion has proceeded on the assumption that these Orders are to impose taxes, but the Treasury Orders in question are Orders removing taxes. [Interruption.] But surely the effect of a temporary suspension is not quite the same thing as imposing new taxes. The only Order which really imposes a new tax is the Order fixing the date on which the Act is to come into operation and the House of Commons has already in precise detail given sanction to every tax which may be imposed under the Bill. The hon. Member's speech would have been more pertinent on the Import Duties Act, but whatever principle has been established under that, Act, it seems rather late to raise it now.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: In line 2, page 12, appears the word "increasing." If increasing a tax is not imposing taxation, I should like to know what interpretation those words bear.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am most obliged to my hon. Friend for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who always conies to my help when I am in no need of assistance,' but who, when I am in need of assistance, criticises me. This portion of the Bill does not impose taxes. Parliament itself imposes the taxes and that has already been done in the course of these discussions. I say so in reply to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Roberts), who seemed to think that we were doing something unconstitutional, but he himself participated in discussions on the earlier portions of the Bill in which that matter was settled. These duties which were imposed on foreign
goods are to come into effect upon certain dates and what we are doing in this Clause is defining the procedure for increasing or reimposing duties which have been reduced or remitted. We decided upon that part of our powers when we were discussing Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, which placed upon the Treasury the obligation to repeal or reduce any duty to the lowest level compatible with the Agreements, and the next Sub-section contained the corollary, the power of enabling us to increase or reimpose what we had previously reduced or repealed. An order made to do either of those two things comes into effect immediately and remains in effect until a Resolution is moved in this House within 28 Parliamentary days approving it or otherwise. If the Resolution approves it, it is to continue; if the Resolution disapproves it, it will lapse. That is the procedure that we adopt here with regard to these two very limited objectives. These two objectives are much more limited than the provisions of the Abnormal Importations Act or the Import Duties Act. I do not remember, when we were discussing those Acts, whether my hon. Friend supported them or objected to them or supported one and objected to the other, but in any event we did establish that procedure with regard to those two Acts of Parliament, and we follow it here to a very much more limited extent.
I would remind the Committee that what we are doing here is something that is made mandatory upon us by a previous Clause. By the second part of Subsection (3) we provide that the orders shall come into force immediately and that they shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, not the House of Commons alone, for we are not concerned here with taxation, and shall have effect unless the House of Commons disapproves of the Resolution that has been moved within 28 Parliamentary days. My hon. Friend wishes to reverse the whole of that procedure, and the result of that would be that if you wished to prohibit the entry of goods from Russia because they frustrated one of these Agreements, you would have to give notice to Russia, under the proposal of the Amendment. Russia would know in advance and would be able to send those goods into this country, not only in normal quantities, but in increased quantities, until such
time as the House of Commons had had an opportunity of discussing the particular Resolution. That would render our defence against a foreign country absolutely useless. Perhaps that is the object of my hon. Friend, and if it is, I hope he will see the validity of the point which I am making.

Mr. WHITE: I neither affirm nor deny what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not admit that his interpretation of the Amendment and its effect is correct.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: But surely the hon. Member's proposal is that we should reverse absolutely the procedure here proposed, and none of the orders would come into effect until confirmed by the House of Commons. Let us suppose that in the month of July or August, when the House of Commons is not sitting, we decide to take action under the powers which the House is conferring upon us, and prohibit the entry of goods from Russia. Parliament will not meet, let us say, until October. Are we to wait until October comes before the order which we make can be made effective? That is the whole point, and surely my hon. Friend, who is very fair-minded, will see the significance of it. Under paragraph (c), if an Agreement lapses, we want to be able to take off the duty at once; and indeed throughout this Clause we are dealing with matters of great urgency, and we must act with the greatest promptitude.
I do not think any grave constitutional issue arises. That has already been disposed of by previous Acts of Parliament. We are taking the only practical action to take in this case. My hon. Friend speaks with a great knowledge of trade, but surely trade would be dislocated to a far more considerable extent if his proposal were adopted than if we adhered to ours. I was glad to see that the hon. Member for West Birkenhead (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen) disagreed with the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), thus illustrating the truth of the saying:
Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.
But I must support the point of view put by my hon. Friend's colleague for the reasons I have mentioned.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I must really correct one statement which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has just made. He
has done it, before in discussing the provisions of this Bill. He will talk about Clause 5 of this Bill as if it were to protect the people of this country, but it is nothing of the sort. It is to protect the Canadian producer, not the people of this country. It is to protect the Canadian producer in spite of the people of this country, and this is not a question of putting on an immediate prohibition in order to protect people in this country at all.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Why not?

Sir S. CRIPPS: Because it is not. That is why. If the hon. Member will look at the Clause, he will see that it says:
If at any time the Board of Trade are satisfied that any preferences granted by this Act in respect of any particular class or description of goods, being preferences granted in fulfilment of the Agreement set out in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act, are likely to he frustrated.…
It is purely a question of whether the preference is likely to be frustrated, not a question as to whether trade in this country desires goods to be imported. It is a question of the frustration of preferences to Canada and of the protection of the Canadians, and the prohibition which is to be put on is something which will obviously be liable to have a very serious effect upon importers into this country. Therefore, the hon. Member is wrong in talking about protecting traders in this country. He is protecting traders in Canada, and the question of forestalling has nothing to do with our position here. It would, if at all, be a question of forestalling Canadian goods, not of forestalling anything as far as we are concerned. The prohibition would be for the purpose of stopping the frustration of the, preference to Canada, and the liability for that to upset our arrangements here does not arise from the fact that it is a prohibition to protect trade.
The only possible effect would be that we should get fewer goods in from

Canada—that is to say, untaxed goods—and more goods in from a country whence they were taxed; that is to say, we should benefit by it, because we should collect more duties from them. There is no question of forestalling duties. It is entirely, if I may say so with great respect to the hon. Member, a misapprehension of the position on his part, and therefore none of the arguments in regard to forestalling duties applies here, because anybody who did this would pay excess duty; they would not get rid of any duties. I certainly agree with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment as regards the orders made by the Board of Trade, though, quite frankly, as regards the orders made by the Treasury, I do not think the matter is of so much importance.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I do not want to follow the hon. and. learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) into what is really a discussion on the merits of the whole Bill, which is what his argument would bring forth, hut I do not think the Committee can let him, if I may be pardoned the expression, get away with the statement that this is not a question of protecting our trade. In the view of the majority of the Members of this House, these Agreements will stimulate our trade, and an attack on these Agreements will attack our trade. If, by accepting this Amendment, we allow any country to attack these Agreements and thus attack our trade with Canada or any other Dominion, it will in fact be attacking our trade, and the object of opposing the Amendment is to protect our trade. That may be a matter of a difference of opinion, but it is not the law of the Medes and Persians because the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol happens to hold a different opinion.

Question put, "That the word "Any" stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 67.

Division No. 347.]
AYES
[4.57 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Aske, Sir Robert William
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfs
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)


Albery, Irving James
Atholl, Duchess of
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th,C.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Balley, Eric Alfred George
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Balille, Sir Adrian W. M.
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thenet)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Berton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Bateman, A. L.
Blindell, James


Borodale, Viscount
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C


Bossom, A. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Boulton, W. W.
Hanbury, Cecil
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hanley, Dennis A.
North, Captain Edward T.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nunn, William


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Harbord, Arthur
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Hartland, George A.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Patrick, Colin M.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Broadbent, Colonel John
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pearson, William G.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsf'd)
Penny, Sir George


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Petherick, M.


Burnett, John George
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilst'n)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hornby, Frank
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pike, Cecil F.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Carver, Major William H.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Bring)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Pybus, Percy John


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm.,W)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsden, E.


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Christie, James Archibald
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannas)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Clarke, Frank
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ray, Sir William


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Ker, J. Campbell
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Colton, Major William Philip
Kimball, Lawrence
Ropner, Colonel L.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Cooke, Douglas
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Ross, Ronald D.


Cooper, A. Duff
Knight, Holford
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Copeland, Ida
Knox, Sir Alfred
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Runge, Norah Cecil


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cranborne, Viscount
Law, Sir Alfred
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lees-Jones, John
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Crossley, A. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Salt, Edward W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Levy, Thomas
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lewis, Oswald
Sandeman, Sir A.N. Stewardt


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A.G.D.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Dickle, John P.
Locker-Lampson. Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Scone, Lord


Donner, P. W.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Drewe, Cedric
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shaw, Helen B. (Lenark, Bothwell)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Shapperson, Sir Ernest W.


Duggan, Hubert John
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Dunglass, Lord
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Skelton, Archilbald Noel


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Elmley, Viscount
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dline, C.)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McKie, John Hamilton
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Emrys-Evans. P. V.
McLean, Major Alan
Smithers, Waldron


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T.E.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Southby, Commander Archibald R.J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stanley, Hon. O.F.G. (Westmorland)


Fermoy, Lord
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stewart, William J.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Storey, Samuel


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Strauss, Edward A.


Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
Martin, Thomas B.
Strickland, Captain W.F.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Mayhew. Lieut.-Colonel John
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Meller, Richard James
Sugden, Sir Wilfred Hart


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Summersby, Charles H.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Milne, Charles
Templeton, William P.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlaw'k)
Thomas, Major L.B. (King's Norton)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thompson, Luke


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Thompson, Sir Frederick Charles


Goff, Sir Park
Moreing, Adrian C.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Train, John


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Moss, Captain H. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Munro, Patrick
Wallance, Captain D.E (Hornsey)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Murray-Phllipson, Hylton Ralph
Wallace, John (Dunfermiline)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col, Sir A.L. (Hull)




Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walisend)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Wells, Sydney Richard
Wills, Wilfrid D.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Weymouth, Viscount
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Whyte, Jardine Bell
Withers, Sir John James
Mr. Womersley and Lord Erskine.


NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Banfield, John William
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George.
Harris, Sir Percy
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cove, William G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cowan, D. M.
Jenkins, Sir William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Thorne, William James


Curry, A. C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merieneth)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, Capt, Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Logan, David Gilbert
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Walter Rea and Sir Murdoch


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesaro',W.)
McKeag, William
McKenzie Wood.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I beg to move, in page 12, line 12, to leave out Sub-section (3).
I take it that it will be in accordance with your wishes, Sir Dennis, if at the same time we discussed the consequential Amendment in page 12, line 34, at the end, to add the words:
(5) Any order made under this Act for the purpose of terminating the scheduled Agreements or for the revocation or modification of any order made under Sections five or seven of this Act shall have effect, unless within a period of twenty-eight days from the date of the order a resolution shall have been passed by each House of Parliament indicating dissent from the terms of the order.
The Amendment involves an important question of principle. It contemplates a changed House of Commons. There might be a House of Commons changed from the present one, either by a change of heart in the course of the present Parliament, in which direction I am not very hopeful, or by the constitution of another House of Commons as the result of an appeal to the people. It is possible that when all these proposals with their effects are submitted to the people, they may decide to wipe out the whole bag of tricks. We have to look at the situation that would arise in this House if they did that. There would be a Prime Minister whose duty, in accordance with the custom of this country, would be to
carry out the will of the people as expressed at the poll. I know that this Bill has been discussed upon the assumption that it gives us advantages. There are some in the House who take the view that it does not so much offer advantages as impose burdens. When the question is considered in the country I suppose that the line of controversy will be whether the proposals offer advantages or impose burdens.
What will be the position of the Prime Minister of the day if he represents in the House a majority of the electors who have decided that they are burdens of which the country should be rid? As the Bill stands, the approval of both Houses of Parliament is necessary to support the action of the Government in removing these restrictions. We put it the other way round in this Amendment, and suggest that in the circumstances that I have described the Government should have power to take action, and that that power should be open only to the veto of this House, and not the veto of both Houses of Parliament. That is the essential part of the Amendment. As the Clause stands, it would be necessary for the Government to bring in their proposal dealing with what is done under Clauses 5 and 7, and their action could be vetoed if both Houses of Parliament joined in. The action of the Government of the day could not go on unless there was a
positive Resolution of both the Commons and the Lords. Take the case of Russia: suppose that it was decided after the election that we should admit Russian timber, contrary to what had been under Clause 5. The Commons could approve that action, but under the Bill it would also need the approval of the Lords. Take another instance. In Clause 7 is the restriction applying to meat. Suppose the Government decided to wipe out that restriction, it might happen that when the matter was referred to the Commons the action of the Executive would be approved, but unless approval could be had from the other Chamber, the restriction would have to continue.
Sub-section (3) of this Clause deals with three matters. Paragraph (a) is
with respect to the prohibition of the importation into the United Kingdom of goods of any class or description grown, produced or manufactured in a foreign country.
Hon. Members will recall that that simply repeats the words of Clause 5. Paragraph (b) is
with respect to the regulation of the importation into the United Kingdom of frozen and chilled meat.
That repeats the words of Clause 7. Then there is paragraph (c)
declaring that any of the scheduled agreements is to be deemed to have ceased to be in force or revoking such a declaration.
The line is difficult to draw, but I suggest that paragraph (c) closely touches the question of taxation. The Agreements include an agreement on our part to tax, and surely the question whether we can continue these Agreements or terminate them is closely asosciated with taxation. Is it not fair that these three points should be limited to the control of this House? It would be a monstrous situation if, having gone to those from whom we derive our authority, they express their condemnation of that part of the Bill which is contained in Clauses 5 and 7 and repeated by the provisions here, and the demand of the people, as expressed by the voice of the Executive, could be overridden by those who have been deprived historically of all right of interference in taxation. It is because it raises that point of principle that we bring forward this Amendment.
We are raising the historic cleavage in the politics of the last 20 years. Anyone
who has read the book dealing with the life of Lord Oxford and Asquith will know that 15 or 20 years ago that was a great issue, and was fought out. We suggest that this Clause raises the same issue, and inasmuch as under this Bill we have "played ducks and drakes" with the Constitution we ought to retain whatever remnant of our Constitution we can. If there is one thing settled in our Constitution it is that the power of imposing taxation rests in this House, and not in another place, and I say that that vital principle in our Constitution would be put in jeopardy if the authority of the people could be withstood even after there is a, freshly-elected Parliament.
I think this is a matter upon which I ought to be able to invoke the support of my friends who sit upon the Treasury Bench, who have Liberal history and Liberal traditions. They have been associated with us in this struggle of the last 20 or 30 years, and a little while ago, when the Government was being reconstructed, consequent upon certain re, signations, a timely reminder appeared in the newspapers that although they remained in the Government they were remaining as the custodians of Liberal principles. We would like them to remember that, and to assist us in this protest against what we believe would be an invasion of a right secured after very hard fights and after many desperate efforts.
If our apprehensions can be relieved, and it can be shown that the fears I have expressed have no foundation, we should not press the Amendment, but I would like whoever replies from the Treasury Bench to direct himself to this one question: Is it possible, taking the Bill as it stands, for the opinion of the people to be expressed in an election and for that opinion to be resisted, frustrated, by an action that is not limited to the walls of this Commons Chamber? If that question cannot be answered in such a way that we can be assured of the defence of these principles for which we have fought, we shall carry this Amendment to a Division.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) always raises every subject which he discusses into an exalted atmosphere, and I doubt whether I have the capacity to ascend to his heights. I will,
however, ask the Committee to examine exactly what it is that we are doing, and exactly what it is that he proposes as an alternative, and we shall then see who is the greater 'democrat, he or I. Any Order made under this Bill prohibiting the importation of certain goods, regulating supplies of meat into this country, or terminating these Agreements will cease to have effect unless it is approved by a Resolution of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords, that is, by Parliament as a whole, within 28 Parliamentary days. My 'hon. Friend dislikes all these provisions, and accordingly we place two checks upon their coming into operation. The House of Commons may reject them, and the House of Lords may reject them, because we are dealing here with matters not directly concerned with taxation. That is what we propose.
My hon. Friend wants to leave this Subsection out altogether. [Interruption.] I am taking his argument in two parts. First of all, he wants to leave out this Sub-section altogether. [Interruption.] I am coming to his alternative, but I am taking it by stages. I am doing so because in the substitute I suggest he has not covered all the contingencies. The effect of leaving out this Sub-section would be that the Government of the day could, of its own motion, and uncontrolled by Parliament, impose a prohibition upon foreign goods entering this country, establish meat control and terminate the Agreements—that is if we leave the Subsection out and put nothing in its place. But my hon. Friend does wish to put something in its place. What does he wish to put in its place? He wants to say that Orders terminating the Agreements, Orders revoking or modifying meat control, and Orders modifying or terminating the prohibition of goods entering this country shall have permanent validity at once unless within 28 days the House of Commons annuls the Orders. Now, who is the greater democrat? Under his proposal we are to have the most arbitrary and uncontrolled power unless Parliament annuls the Order within 28 days. See what it would involve. It would mean that the Executive could make an Order terminating the Agreements altogether; the Executive could make an Order modifying our meat control scheme, that is to say they might intensify the control and make it far more drastic, without any obligatory con-
trol by Parliament; and they might modify our arrangements in respect of imports from foreign countries, that is to say, might make our prohibition even more severe.
My hon. Friend, with the great democratic traditions of which he has spoken this afternoon, says the Government of the day ought to have the power to do all these things without any restraint, without any, criticism and that the Executive's act shall remain in operation unless somebody comes down to this House and moves a Resolution annulling it. We, with all our practical common sense and our desire to act promptly, never aspired to such dictatorial powers as my hon. Friend wishes to confer upon us. We have undertaken to place every Order before this House, except Orders reducing duties, which my hon. Friend would welcome, and except Orders bringing the Agreements into force. Otherwise, we put every Order made before the House of Commons. My hon. Friend thinks that by doing that we are doing something which in some way offends a democratic principle. But we are the democrats. My hon. Friend wishes to make us into Stuart Kings, but that is, perhaps, because he follows so well the example of the Great Protector.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he address himself to the point of the House of Lords? That was the gravamen of my case—as to whether or not that decision can be arrived at irrespective of the House of Lords. Then, perhaps, if he will look at his history he will find that the Protector did away with the House of Lords altogether.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Great Protector took away this bauble. He did away with us. I am pointing out to my hon. Friend that he is following that example. He wants to do away with the House of Commons. He wants to put the power not in the House of Lords but in the hands of the Executive. I have said that, in order to meet his objections, or objections that might be raised to the executive power which we are taking, we say that our Orders must be approved both by the House of Commons and by the House of Lords. There is the double cheek. My hon. Friend says: "Let us have them approved by neither, but, if anyone objects within 28 days he may
come here and move a Resolution." But if Parliament is not sitting there could be no Resolution moved at all.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has, very ingeniously, entirely evaded the point of this Amendment, which was explained at length and with clarity by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). The Amendment to leave out the Sub-section was regarded by the Chair as a necessary preliminary to the other Amendment being brought into order, and it was put down for that reason, and the two were taken together. Of course, we never for a moment bad the intention which my hon. Friend attributes to us of——

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I really must interrupt my right hon. Friend. I dealt with that matter quite candidly. I said that this question fell into two parts, first the leaving out of the Sub-section in order to replace it with something else, and I said that what was to be put in its place did not cover all the contingencies and therefore I would describe what would happen by its being left out. I then dealt with what was to come in in its place.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I do not disagree with that. I have no quarrel with that. I was going to say that it was not our intention to arrive at the results which the hon. Gentleman just mentioned, namely, to amend this Bill in such a way that the Treasury or the Board of Trade could make orders without any Parliamentary sanction at all. If the principle of the new Sub-section were to be agreed to by the Government it would be perfectly possible to alter the Amendment in such a way as to save the present powers, but for the purposes of order we had to move to leave out the Subsection or we could not have brought forward our other point. If the hon. Gentleman agrees with the point of substance which is embodied in the Amendment of my hon. Friend we are quite ready to modify it, and to secure that the Bill shall retain all the powers which are now reserved to Parliament in order to control the orders that are to be made. Let that be made clear.
5.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend, fastening upon this point, which is a sound point so far as it goes, and which would have to be met
if the principle of the other Amendment were agreed to, has "given the go by" to the whole of the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin. His case is this, dealing with these two orders, the Russian order and the meat order. They are the only two really in question—the Russian order restricting the importation of Russian timber or other commodities, and the meat order imposing a general restriction upon meat supplies from foreign countries. It is assumed that what one Government and Parliament can do another Government and Parliament can easily undo, and that if there were a change of Government and a change in the constitution of the House of Commons, and the country had given its mandate for the reversal of this policy, there would be no difficulty in carrying that mandate into effect. So far as taxes are concerned that would be so. The new Government could inform the Dominions—although it would be a breach of the Agreement they would have the power to do it—that they proposed to repeal certain duties, and they could in their Finance Bill repeal those duties. That being a Money Bill, it would go straight through the House of Lords. Now take these two particular matters, the Russian order and the meat order. Any order repealing them would have to be laid upon the Table of both Houses, and if the House of Lords refused to pass a Motion sanctioning their repeal the effect would be that those orders, made by this Government, in this Parliament, would go on. They could not be repealed, and any legislation to repeal them would not be a money Bill, and would be subject to the veto of the House of Lords. It could only be passed under the Parliament Act after the lapse of two or three years. That is the point of substance in my hon. Friend's Amendment. It is a point which is all the more important, because the effect of it would be, as I have said, that the veto of the House of Lords would be made to apply to the nullification, not of an Act of Parliament, but of a particular order made by the Treasury or by the Board of Trade.
We have moved this Amendment entirely for that reason. We say that there ought not to be this obstacle imposed to the execution of a measure of that kind that might be desired to be taken, by either this or some succeeding
House of Commons, after a General Election. We can imagine how difficult it would be to get either of those two Orders repealed with the sanction of another place. Therefore, we suggest that this should be regarded as analogous to the taxation imposed by this Bill, and that the Bill should be altered accordingly. The consequences which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury feared should undoubtedly be avoided, and any modification which was necessary in the form of our Amendment would be agreed to.

Mr. ATTLEE: I should like to support this Amendment, as far as it goes. It is interesting to hear hon. Gentlemen of different varieties of the Liberal party splitting constitutional hairs, especially the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), pleading for powers of taxation in this Committee, when one considers that a short time ago he was a Member of the Government that broke through every possible precedent with regard to taxation. We would like to know, if he had not been a Member of that Government, what he would have had to say about the Import Duties Act under which powers of taxation were taken away from this House. I am also rather interested to hear the Financial Secretary to the Treasury supporting this House against any invasion from the Executive. There is some substance in what the two Members of the Liberal party have put forward. The Bill as it stands puts this House under the veto of the House of Lords. The only way you can get away from that is not by playing with the subject, but by dealing with the House of Lords. I do not believe that the Liberal party have any intention of dealing with the House of Lords. They are contemplating coming into office some time under the usual circumstances of Liberal Governments in the past, in which the Executive is fettered by the House of Lords when there is not a Conservative party in power. The Executive is perfectly free when a Conservative party is in power.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: We passed the Parliament Act.

Mr. ATTLEE: And an extraordinary thing the Parliament Act is. A tremendous lot of noise was made about the Parliament Act in the country, and very little has come of it. Our point of view
is that something much more will have to be done if we want to change to a Government in which drastic action is going to be taken. If it were a question of our coming into power in this House, we should find hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite running to the House of Lords in order to support the capitalist system.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: As one who has suffered drastically from time to time by the abuses which were brought in by the last Government, in preventing free discussion on finance, I remember that those abuses were supported by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and the right hon. Gentleman who is at present leading the Samuel Group in the House of Commons. To find them pretending here that they want to stand up for the House of Commons, and for purity of finance and that kind of thing, is a very drastic change for a party that prides itself on sticking in the mud with the greatest of all possible persistency. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), in his opening remarks, said that this Amendment could be amended. Surely the right hon. Gentleman has sufficient knowledge of the House of Commons not to put down Amendments on the Order Paper that immediately afterwards are to be amended. That would have an effect exactly opposite what the speeches made in their support intended they should have.
I can conceive of no case, where you had a new House of Commons freshly elected on a matter of finance of this kind, in which there could be opposition, under modern conditions, from the Second Chamber, to any drastic change in this House. As I understand the situation at the present time, certain hon. Members are seeking varying ways whereby they can make the operation of this tax more difficult. The real reason why the Committee should reject this Amendment is that it is the intention of the House of Commons and of the people who sent us here that we should make these Orders elastic so that we can deal with them quickly and put them on a fairly permanent basis. If there is a mistake in the Bill as it now stands, it is easy to remedy that mistake. I hope that the Government will stick to their position in regard to this Amendment.
Whatever else the Amendment may be, no one can say that it is democratic either in form or in principle.

Mr. BATEY: I wish to support the Amendment, which is a most important one, and is well worthy of the support of the Committee. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is far too clever to have attempted to meet any of the arguments that were advanced in favour of the Amendments, and he simply indulged in recriminations. That is not meeting the arguments that were used. Neither has the Financial Secretary to the Treasury attempted to meet any of the arguments that were used by the Mover. All he did was to stand at that Box and say: "We are the democrats." He is a democrat. It is just as well that he told us. He reminded me of the boy who put something down on paper, and then wrote underneath it: "This is a horse." Unless he had written that, no one would have known it was a horse. If the Financial Secretary had not told us that he was a democrat, no one would have known it. It is the last thing that we would have given him credit for, but he has told us, and therefore I suppose that we must accept it, although his actions while he has been a Member of the Government have been entirely in the opposite direction. We consider that he is not entitled to stand at that Box and say that he is a democrat.
He says that if it were not for Sub-section (3), the Government, without consulting the House of Commons, could increase any of the Orders or prohibitions, or whatever they pleased. What does it matter Orders are made by the Treasury, and the supporters of the Government are bound to confirm those Orders. They have no option. Whether the Executive made the Orders with or without consulting the House of Commons is a matter of no importance. Once the Orders are made, the supporters of the Government are bound to confirm them lest they turn the Government out. The Government say: "Unless you confirm the Orders, we shall be forced to go to the country, and that will mean a General Election," and they force their supporters to agree to the Orders whether they really agree with them or not. The Minister did not meet the strong argument which was used, that
the Orders have to be confirmed by both Houses of Parliament. If they were to be confirmed only by this House, there would be no complaint, but they have to be confirmed by both Houses of Parliament.
The Financial Secretary says that that is a two-fold safeguard. It is no such thing. The Mover of the Amendment said—and the Financial Secretary did not reply to this—that if a new Government is elected, both Houses of Parliament will have to cancel the Orders that the new House may think it wise to cancel. That is the danger of it. It is the danger in regard to the other House. A Constitutional question is raised. My hon. Friends on the Front Opposition Bench have made it perfectly clear that when they get into power again—[HON. MEMBERS: "When"!]—Well, read the results of the municipal elections. [An HON MEMBER "Sheffield"!] You will see that Labour is getting on its feet and is again beginning to sweep the country. Before this Government is turned out hon. Members will see by the writing on the wall what is going to be their fate. My hon. Friends on the Front Opposition Bench have mode it clear that when Labour comes into power it will sweep away all these Measures. The fact of the Orders having to be confirmed by the other House will mean that the other House will claim the right to say whether the Orders shall stand. The other House is simply a committee of the Tory party. Although the country at the next election may put a Labour Government into power in this House, yet the Tory friends of hon. Members will act in the other House and will do whatever hon. Members ask them to do. They will try to kill the policy of the Labour party. I submit that-it will be far better to have the Sub-section swept away than to allow the provision to stand that two Houses of Parliament are to confirm the Orders, because of the power which the provision gives to the House of Lords and which will prevent any future Labour Government from revoking the Orders and cancelling the tariff policy of the present Government.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I want to remove any misapprehension existing in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). It is
not the Government who can be accused of any indecision, as he must admit. He now confesses that what he wishes to do is to change four words in our Sub-section, that is to say that instead of saying hat the Orders shall be approved by "both Houses of Parliament," thus ensuring a. double check, he would have preferred us to have said "one House of Parliament." If my right hon. Friend had desired to achieve that result and make that breach in constitutional practice he should have moved an Amendment in that sense and, of course, we should have dealt with it. What he is trying to do is to take away from the powers that we give to the Parliament and vest them in a stronger executive.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I have no desire to speak again, but the Financial Secretary knows that in putting that interpretation upon the Amendment he is consciously putting a wrong interpretation on what was said, because he had the opportunity of hearing what I said in this Committee. The Amendment does not bear the interpretation that has been put upon it. Members of the Committee know what was the gravamen of our case. The specific question might have been answered, if there had been a satisfactory answer to it. It was a simple question. Questions as to whether my hon. Friend is a better democrat than I am are not questions that can be decided here. I have not accused the hon. Gentleman of any lack of democracy, but that question can be decided elsewhere, and must depend upon other tests. I put a specific question, and I suggest to him that he will be dealing fairly and candidly with the House if he will give the answer to that question. It is not a difficult question to answer. It is this: Assuming that

a new Parliament comes in pledged to the removal of the Orders made under Clauses 5 and 7, will the executive of that day, and the House of Commons of that day, be free to wipe out such Orders, or must that be dependent upon the approval of another place?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I can answer that question at once, although, as my hon. Friend says, it has no reference whatever to the Amendment which he moved. There is, as far as I am aware, no precedent for making the operation of any Order other than an Order relating to taxation conditional upon a Resolution of the house of Commons only, but the precedents for making the operation of an Order conditional upon Resolutions of both Houses are legion. That is the constitutional position. My hon. Friend wants to remove the authority of the House of Lords. This is not a Bill in which to do that, as was pointed out to him by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). If it is desired to remove one of the essential elements in the constitution, that raises a very much bigger question than we are discussing here to-day. Of course, I could not, in response to a casual Amendment, and still less an Amendment which has not been moved, snake a breach of that kind in the constitution. As the law now stands, as the practice of the constitution now stands, my hon. Friend is perfectly right; both Houses of Parliament will have to be consulted before the Order is either approved or disapproved.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 330; Noes, 66.

Division No. 348.]
AYES
5.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut,-Colonel
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bateman, A. L.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George


Albery, Irving James
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Broadbent, Colonel John


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Burghley, Lord


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie


Apsley, Lord
Blindetl, James
Burnett, John George


Asks, Sir Robert William
Borodale, Viscount
Butt, Sir Alfred


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Boosom, A. C.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Atholl, Duchess of
Boulton, W. W.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Bowater,-Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Saline, Sir Adrian W. M.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Bailout, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Carver, Major William H.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Boyce, H. Leslie
Camels, James Dale


Castlereagh, Viscount
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hepworth, Joseph
North, Captain Edward T.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nunn, William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Patrick, Colin M.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hornby, Frank
Peaks, Captain Osbert


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pearson, William G.


Christie, James Archibald
Howard, Tom Forrest
Penny, Sir George


Clarke, Frank
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Clayton Dr. George C.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Petherick, M.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hurd, Sir Percy
Pete, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pike, Cecil F.


Cooke, Douglas
Iveagh, Countess of
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cooper, A. Duff
James, Wing Com. A, W. H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Copeland, Ida
Jamieson, Douglas
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Pybus, Percy John


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Cranborne, Viscount
Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Craven-Ellis, William
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kimball, Lawrence
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Crooke, J. Smedley
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ramsden, E.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Crossley, A. C.
Knebworth, Viscount
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Knight, Holford
Ray, Sir William


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knox, Sir Alfred
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Dickle, John P.
Law, Sir Alfred
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Donner, P. W.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Drewe, Cedric
Lees-Jones, John
Ross, Ronald D.


Duckworth, George A. V
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross Taylor. Walter (Woodbridge)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Duggan, Hubert John
Levy, Thomas
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Dunglass, Lord
Lewis, Oswald
Runge, Norah Cecil


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Llewellin, Major John J.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Locker-Lampoon, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd.Gr'n)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Elmley, Viscount
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Salmon, Major Isidore


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Salt, Edward W.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
MacAndrew, Lieut,-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Faile, Sir Bertram G.
McCorguodale, M. S.
Scone, Lord


Fermoy, Lord
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Selley, Harry R.


Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Fuller, Captain A. G.
McKie, John Hamilton
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
McLean, Major Alan
Slater, John


Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Magnay, Thomas
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinedine,C.)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Maitland, Adam
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smithers, Waldron


Goff, Sir Park
Manningham-Buller, Lt,-Col. Sir M
Soper, Richard


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Martin, Thomas B.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Greene, William P. C.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stewart, William J.


Grimston, R. V.
Meller, Richard James
Storey, Samuel


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Strauss, Edward A.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Milne, Charles
Summersby, Charles H.


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hanbury, Cecil
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Templeton, William P.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Morning, Adrian C.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Harbord, Arthur
Moss, Captain H. J.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Hartland, George A.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Thompson, Luke


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Munro, Patrick
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Ralph
Thorp, Linton Theodore




Titchfleid, Major the Marquess of
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Train, John
Wardlaw-Mline, Sir John S.
Withers, Sir John James


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wells, Sydney Richard
Womersiey, Walter James


Turton, Robert Hugh
Weymouth, Viscount
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Whyte, Jardine Bell
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v;oaks)


Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)



Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wills, Wilfrid D.
Lord Erskine and Dr. Morris-Jones.


NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
McKeag, William


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Bernays, Robert
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Milner, Major James


Buchanan, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cove, William G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Janner, Barnett
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Curry, A. C.
Jenkins, Sir William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Daggar, George
John, William
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col, David


Edwards, Charles
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
White, Henry Graham


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Leonard, William
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick



Grefell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Mr. Walter Rea and Sir Murdoch


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McEntee, Valentine L.
McKenzie Wood.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Power of Treasury to refer to Import Duties Advisory Committee.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.0 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Before the Committee pass from this Clause, they would, I am sure, like to have an explanation on behalf of the Government as to what exactly the Clause means and what is the intention of the Government under the Clause. The Clause deals with the power of the Treasury to refer matters to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. One of the important scatters which the Treasury will have to decide will be the matter which is dealt with in Article 4 of the Canadian Agreement, that is to say, the question whether Empire producers of wheat in grain, copper, zinc, and lead, respectively, are unable or unwilling to offer these commodities on first sale in the United Kingdom at prices not exceeding the world prices and in quantities which are sufficient to supply the requirements of the United Kingdom. That is so obviously a matter which could not be decided by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, seeing the type of questions which it will raise, that we
should like an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that matters of that sort will not ill any way be referred to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I am not suggesting that they would; it may be that the purpose of the Clause is merely o deal with technical matters as regards precise definitions, descriptions, matters of convenience as regards drawback, and all kinds of matters of that type. We do not think that matters of this fundamental importance and difficulty should be referred is the Import Duties Advisory Committee, because it raises the question, among other things, of the willingness of the exporter or the grower or the manufacturer or whoever he may be in the Colonies to offer these commodities. That is clearly a question that cannot be decided in this country. It will, apparently, have to be decided in Canada, and there is no procedure by which an accusation of being unwilling to supply a commodity in reasonable quantities and at a reasonable price can be judged by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. There might be a price ring or restriction of production in Canada. The Committee cannot call the Canadians before them or inquire into the question whether the supply is restricted for one reason or another. Therefore, we should like to have a full assurance from the Government that such important matters as that
will not be referred to them, but that some other tribunal will be set up which can discuss matters of that sort.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): This Clause is perfectly general in character, and it gives the Treasury power to seek an advisory opinion from the Import Duties Advisory Committee upon any question that may arise in regard to the discharge of the functions of the Treasury under the Act. The Committee is possessed of technical knowledge and experience and is an extremely capable independent body, and it seems natural that the Treasury should take power in this legislation to refer specific matters to them for an advisory opinion. The hon. and learned Gentleman expressed a hope that in that general realm of subjects there should not be included those which seem most likely to arise, so I understood his argument. He asked whether, for Instance, the question whether the four commodities were being offered at world prices would be the sort of question that should be submitted. The answer must he in the affirmative. The question would not be whether the Empire producer is unwilling. The question would probably be: Are British consumers requirements being met by the offer of these commodities at world prices? Besides the word "unwilling," in regard to which there might be some difficulty, there is also in the Canadian Agreements the word "unable," and "unable" is tested entirely from the consumers' point of view, from the ability of the consumer to secure the supplies to which the Article relates.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not say that the proper interpretation of whether a person is unable to offer is whether the consumer can get it. It is an entirely different proposition. I am sure he will appreciate that.

Dr. BURGIN: What I am endeavouring to say is that Clause 11 is general in character and that I am unable to give the hon. and learned Gentleman any assurance that the type of question that he raises will not be submitted. It is precisely one of the types of question that would be referred to the Advisory Committee.

Clause 12 (Exercise of powers by, and expenses of, Board of Trade) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE, 13.—(Interpretation.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir S. CRIPPS: We now arrive at the most extraordinary bit of legislation that I think has ever been put before the House of Commons. Hidden in the back of a definition Clause is the second Subsection, which says:
References in this Act to any of the scheduled Agreements shall be construed as references to that Agreement as for the time being varied by mutual consent.
That is to say, the Governments of this country and of any Dominion can at any moment make any alteration in the Agreement, and the House of Commons will be deemed to have given its assent to the alteration without ever having heard of it. Not only will it be deemed to have given its consent, but it will be deemed to have authorised anything to be done under it that may be done under this Act. One has had legislation by reference, one has had legislation giving the Executive unexampled power, but surely here we are meeting with a type of legislation as to which there can never have been any precedent. Two people agree upon a certain line of action. On the face of this Agreement this House is asked to put into force a large number of duties on vital commodities—foodstuffs and raw materials, The argument in favour of that is that you must take the Agreement as a whole. We have had it stated ad naruseam from the Front Bench. Then we find put in this Clause a provision that everything eau be wiped out of the Agreement except the tax on foodstuffs, that any variation can be made of the meat quota arrangement, that any addition can be made as regards putting a prohibition by the Board of Trade. At present it only appears in the Canadian Agreement, but Australia can come along and say, "You have done this for Canada. Why cannot we have it?" The Government will say. "We can do it under the Bill. We need not go back to Parliament to get any
fresh authority." All those prohibitions will have been authorised by Parliament, although they have never been heard of and although it has never been suggested that they should be made.
This Clause should not be passed. If the Government have any suggestion as regards the necessity for it, it could easily be put in words far narrower, far more restrictive, and tying down the Government to some specific matter if they have a specific matter in mind, but to give the Government a perfectly wide roving commission to alter these Agreements just as they wish in any way as regards any matter without consultation with the House seems to me to deprive them of the only argument they have so far had in favour of carrying the Bill through the House.

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman has a short memory. We have been discussing only to-day Clause 10, which provides that no increase or reimposition of a duty can be effected without an affirmative Resolution being passed. There is, therefore, a safeguard in that respect. It is also provided by Clause 1 (3) that in no circumstances can the maximum rate of duty that is imposed by the Bill be increased. But I gather the hon. and learned Gentleman's objection to the Clause is really confined to the last four lines. This is a normal interpretation Clause down to those four last lines. Various phrases are given the same interpretation as in the Finance Act and the Import Duties Act, 1932, and the other definitions I gather he takes no exception to. The second Sub-section is necessary if circumstances arise which bring about variations in the Agreements themselves. Article 23 of the Canadian Agreement, and the corresponding last article of each of the Agreements with the other Dominions, contain powers for variation, and in the absence of this Subsection the scheduled Agreement would be the original Agreement as scheduled, and it would not be competent for the Treasury to have regard to variations which had been made by mutual consent. Having regard to the safeguards imported into the Bill, it seems to me that these four lines are absolutely necessary for the Treasury to exercise their power.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: I am generally in entire agreement with my hon. Friend in the interpretation that he has given to the words of the Bill, but his speech leaves me in some difficulty. I had noticed the references to which he has just drawn attention in Clauses 1 and 10, which made me feel confident that they did not refer either to an increase or decrease in the duty. But, if so, is not this Sub-section extremely contradictory to other parts of the Bill? Although it is true that Parliament has not the onerous duty of interpreting the law after it is passed—and we may be thankful for that—it seems to me that we are putting into the Clause words which are entirely contradictory to the other parts of the Bill, and I should have thought it was worth the while of the Government to consider whether this could not be expressed in a little more definite way than appears in the Subsection.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I think there is something in the argument which has been put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman which has not been met in the answer given from the Front Bench. Would it not be possible to say that references in this Act to any of the scheduled Agreements shall be construed as references to that Agreement as for the time being varied in accordance with the terms of this Act? If that were done, it would meet the case put by the hon. and learned Gentleman. As things are, if one wants to consider the Act, or if in the courts an opinion is sought, what material will there be to enable them to arrive at the alterations which may have been made, perhaps a series of alterations over a long time? Here is an Act of Parliament which contemplates a duration of at least five years. It may extend, if the hopes of many Members are, realised, over 20 or 25 years. This Interpretation Clause has to run all through that time, and, although the Parliamentary Secretary invokes precedents for the other definitions, I should like to know if there is any precedent for this definition. Is there anything in Statute law which would justify, what I think is the very loose wording of this part of the Clause, and would it not be possible to meet it upon the lines which I have suggested, or upon lines which will commend themselves to those who are advising the Parliamentary
Secretary? I think the answer that has been made by the Front Bench does not dispose of the argument submitted by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 333; Noes, 70.

Division No. 349.]
AYES
[6.15 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Craven-Ellis, William
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Albery, Irving James
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hurd, Sir Percy


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llyerp'l, W.)
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)


Allen, Lt.-Col, J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Iveagh, Countess of


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Crossley, A. C.
Jamleson, Douglas


Apollo, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Apsley, Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Ker, J. Campbell


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Dickle, John P.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Donner, P. W.
Kimball, Lawrence


Batley, Eric Alfred George
Drewe, Cedric
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Baldwin-Webb. Colonel J.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Knebworth, Viscount


Ranks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Duggan, Hubert John
Knight, Holford


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Dunglass, Lord
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bateman, A. L.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Law, Sir Alfred


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Elmley, Viscount
Lees-Jones, John


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Emmott. Charles E. G. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Emrys-Evans. P. V.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Levy, Thomas


Blindell, James
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lewis, Oswald


Borodale, Viscount
Ersklne-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Bossom, A. C.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunllfle-


Boulton, W. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Llewellin, Major John J.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Fermoy, Lord
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Boyce, H. Leslie
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Bracken, Brendan
Fox, Sir Gifford
MacAndrew. Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Braithwaite. J. G. (Hillsborough)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Ganzonl, Sir John
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassctlaw)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Glossop, C. W. H.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McKie, John Hamilton


Burghley, Lord
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
McLean, Major Alan


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Burnett, John George
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Butt, Sir Alfred
Granville, Edgar
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Magnay, Thomas


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Graves, Marjorie
Maitland, Adam


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Greene, William P. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Carver, Major William H.
Grimston, R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Cassels, James Dale
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Castlereagh, Viscount
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Martin, Thomas B.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Meller, Richard James


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hanbury, Cecil
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W)
Hanley, Dennis A,
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Milne, Charles


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Harbord, Arthur
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Christie, James Archibald
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Clarke, Frank
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hepworth, Joseph
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Munro, Patrick


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph


Cooke, Douglas
Hornby, Frank
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Howard, Tom Forrest
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Copeland, Ida
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
North, Captain Edward T.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nunn, William


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'slde)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Patrick, Colin M.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Templeton, William P.


Peake, Captain Osbert
Salmon, Major Isidore
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Pearson, William G.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thompson, Luke


Petherick, M.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Savery, Samuel Servington
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Scone, Lord
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Selley, Harry R.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Pike, Cecil F.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Train, John


Power, Sir John Cecil
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Pybus, Percy John
Slater, John
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wardlaw-Miline, Sir John S.


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Ramsden, E.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Ratcliffe, Arthur
Smithers, Waldron
Weymouth, Viscount


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Soper, Richard
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ray, Sir William
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Coionel George


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stewart, William J.
Withers, Sir John James


Roes, Ronald D.
Storey, Samuel
Womersley, Walter James


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Strauss, Edward A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Runge, Norah Cecil
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart



Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Summersbv, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel




Sir A. Lambert Ward.


NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Bonfield, John William
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mason, David M.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Edinburgh, E.) Maxton, James


Bernays, Robert
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cove, William G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cowan, D. M.
Janner, Barnett
Rea, Walter Russell


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Curry, A. C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lawson, John James
White, Henry Graham


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McKeag, William



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W.)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 14—(Short title, commencement and duration.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir S. CRIPPS: I wish to ask a question on this Clause. In Sub-section (2) there is a provision that the Treasury may by order fix different days for the Act to come into effect as regards the various duties, and, I assume, as regards the various Agreements. I should like to know from the hon. Member or from
the right hon. Gentleman as to whether that is being done in contemplation of some of these Agreements possibly not. being signed by other parties—India or Newfoundland or any other country—or whether it is intended that all the Agreements shall come into force, but only some of the duties under the Agreement at different dates.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I make no apologies for raising again on this Clause the question of copper, because it has been made clear to us by the Financial Secre-
tary to the Treasury that the Government propose to omit fire-refined and bessemer copper from the operation of the proposed duty while immediately imposing a duty upon electrolytic copper. I am puzzled to imagine how under the Clause they will distinguish between the two. Sub-section (2) reads:
This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Treasury may by Order fix, and the Treasury may fix different days for different purposes and different provisions of this Act and different days as respects the several duties chargeable under section one of this Act.
There is no provision there for splitting copper into two, if I may put it in that way. Under the Agreement with Canada, copper, which is to be taxed 2d. a lb., is defined as
Copper, unwrought, whether refined or not, in ingots, bars, blocks, slabs, cakes and rods"—
in fact all copper. The proposal of the Treasury to omit one type of copper temporarily—it may be for a period of months it may much more likely be for a period of many years—from the operation of the Bill while submitting another class of copper immediately to be taxed seems to have no authorisation under this Clause. I shall be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade can inform us when he replies how he proposes under the Bill or under this Clause to carry out the policy of the Treasury as regards the taxation of copper under the Canadian Agreement?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: As questions are being put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, I shall be glad if he will answer a question which I wish to put. Sub-section (3) says:
This Act shall continue in force so long as any of the scheduled Agreements is in force and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise determines.
Are we to understand, whatever may happen to the several Agreements, that if one Agreement remains the Act continues? Would this be the effect, taking one instance? We are imposing a duty of 2s. upon wheat. Suppose that in consequence of a decision arrived at in Canada or in other Dominions, Canada and other Dominions, except India, drop out and India remains a party to this Agreement, shall we have to continue the duty? If hon. Members will turn to
page 83 of the Bill they will see a Schedule relating to India containing the words:
Wheat, in grain, 2s. per quarter.
While wheat from India is not a negligible factor, it is not a primary factor in relation to this Measure. Is it, therefore, a fair statement of the case that whatever might happen, say in Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, if the Agreement continued as far as India was concerned, we should still have to maintain the imposition of the duty on the wheat coming into this country?

Lieut-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Article 4 of the First Schedule says:
It is agreed that the duty on either wheat in grain, copper, zinc or lead, as provided in this agreement, may be removed if at any time Empire producers of wheat in grain, copper, zinc and lead respectively are unable or unwilling to offer these commodities on first sale in the United Kingdom at prices not exceeding the world prices and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of the United Kingdom consumers.
I think that is the answer to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot).

6.30 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will endeavour to answer the questions which have been nut. In reply to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), we have no reason to suppose that any of these Agreements will fail to be ratified by any of the respective Governments, but in a legal instrument we must contemplate what is a possibility. Therefore, the answer to the hon. and learned Member's question is that this has been done in that respect. It also applies to individual duties. A notable example is the case of copper, to which reference has been made. There, it is not proposed to put a duty on all kinds of copper at the same time, because different kinds of copper may be subject to duty at different dates, which may be fixed under this Clause. I am not quite sure that I fully apprehended the point made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harcourt Johnstone), but I can assure him there is no difficulty in discriminating between the different kinds of copper, if that was his point.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: There is nothing in this Clause to enable any discrimina-
tion to be made in the sense of the splitting up of any article mentioned in the Schedules. There has been an agreement arrived at between the users and producers of copper to omit one kind of copper from taxation for an indefinite period, while immediately imposing taxation upon another kind of copper, but there is nothing which I can see in this Clause permitting the splitting into portions of an article specifically named in any of the Schedules. You can, of course, put off the time at which you choose to tax copper as a whole. You may tax it at once or in two or three weeks, or later, but I do not see where permission is given to split a commodity into two parts and to tax one and not tax the other.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is purely a legal point on one of the interpretations of the Act. We are advised that we have power to make that discrimination. In regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), it is the case that if the Agreements with Canada and Australia lapse and the Agreement with India still remains, we cannot remove the duty upon wheat unless by consent of the Indian Government. Of course, he has put a very hypothetical case. I think he will agree that it is very unlikely that the circumstances which he supposes will ever arise. On the academic point, however, it is clear that in that case the duty could not be removed; but I would remind the hon. Member that there is provision in the Agreement that it may be varied by consent, and that in the case of the Indian Agreement it is not of the same duration as the other Agreements and is subject to six months' notice.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Temporary drawback.)

Where it appears to the Treasury that any duty of customs imposed under this Act on any commodity may prejudice the export of goods in the manufacture of which such commodity is used, the Treasury may, pending an inquiry by the Import Duties Advisory Committee under the provisions of Section nine of the Finance Act, 1932, by order provide for drawback to be paid in respect of the exports of such goods at such rates as it may think fit.—[Mr. H. Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is for the purpose of conferring upon the Treasury a temporary power. The Committee may remember the discussion which took place a few days ago on the subject of linseed. In that Debate I urged the possibility of the situation being met by means of a drawback. That is contemplated by Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1932, which is applied in the Second Schedule of this Bill. That Schedule also says:
The enactments set out in this Part of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to goods chargeable with a duty of customs under Section one of this Act as they have effect in relation to goods chargeable with a duty of customs under the Import Duties Act, 1932,
Therefore, the Bill contemplates the possibility of drawbacks being granted in respect of any goods which are made from any of the articles which are dutiable under this Bill. As I pointed out when we were discussing this matter previously, the procedure under Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1932, may be somewhat slow in existing circumstances. The Import Duties Advisory Committee are doing their job with great efficiency—that does not necessarily mean that I agree with every decision they arrive at—but it is also obvious that they are having a tremendous job. You cannot introduce an Act like the Import Duties Act, which raises the position of practically every commodity, in respect of a great many of which applications have been made to the committee, without that committee being for the moment literally overburdened and overwhelmed with work. Accordingly, if the important industries which use linseed as their raw material should be greatly hampered in their export trade because the duty on Argentine linseed has had the effect of raising the price of linseed, owing to the circumstances which exist at the moment in the production of tax-free linseed in India, it will be deplorable. If the important linoleum-making industry, the important paint industries, and very important industries producing oil and cake by crushing linseed are embarrassed in any way, and if there is any growth of unemployment in those industries, because they find it difficult to compete with the rest of the world in the export markets, it will be very regrettable.
So far as internal competition is concerned, the matter is to some extent taken care of by existing protective duties on the products made from linseed. It is more particularly in respect of competition all over the world that the traders and manufacturers concerned are very perturbed, and it was in the hope that a way out of the difficulty might be found that I put down this new Clause, which will confer for a short period the very autocratic power on the Treasury to prescribe by Order, not only in respect of linseed, but of any commodity that may be affected, such rates of drawback as the Treasury may think fit to impose. If any trade concerned really felt that it was aggrieved, it would make an application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for a scheme under Section 9 of the Finance Act, and while the Advisory Committee was working out a proper scheme of drawback the Treasury could grant such drawback as it thought fit. It is only a temporary power. I realise that I am contemplating something which would not have that precision which the Treasury generally likes in connection with draw. backs. In these matters the Treasury thinks always in revenue, but in the administration of tariffs they ought to bear in mind the fact that the primary purpose is employment, and not revenue. I should not be much concerned if under this temporary arrangement someone got a little more than he was entitled to and someone perhaps got a little less, as long as the general effect was to protect an export trade which in favourable years amounts to £5,000,000 in respect of one product or another made from linseed.
Another respect in which this new Clause might be useful is in respect of flour milled from imported dutiable grain. From time to time it might be necessary, as I indicated on another Amendment, to use dutiable grain, and the seller of that dutiable grain might be aware that the miller had to use that grain. In those circumstances, it might well be the case that the duty would be passed on to the user, with the result that the export trade in flour would be prejudicial. In regard to copper, it might be necessary, an an alternative to the utilisation of the powers to suspend the duty, to prepare for some scheme of
drawback. The emergency may not arise, but it would certainly be useful if this power was immediately at the disposal of the Treasury. Lastly, certain fruits are preserved, canned and tinned, and if there was any prejudice to the export trade of such preserved fruit because of any conceivable rise in price caused by any of the duties, then there would be at the disposal of the Treasury a weapon of relief which they could use at once. It is in the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be willing to consider this Clause, or to indicate some alternative method whereby the real fears of the people concerned might be quickly relieved, that I have pleasure in moving it.

Mr. J. WALLACE: I am very anxious that the principle of this new Clause should be inserted in the Bill, either in this or some other form. When I agreed to support the Clause I had in mind the question of linseed oil and it is for that specific commodity that I should like to see the Clause added to the Bill. I am aware of the powers of the Tariff Advisory Committee and fully cognisant of the ability and fairness of the gentlemen who compose that committee to deal with an important matter of this kind, but, having regard to the extraordinary amount of legislation during this Parliament relating to tariffs of various forms which have affected industries in this country, and also having regard to the very varied trade interests and many complications arising from those interests which come before the Tariff Advisory Committee, it is impossible for those gentlemen to avoid considerable delay in coming to a decision. I am sure that they address themselves with very great ability and in a judicial manner to any problems with which they are faced, but it is a very narrow bottle-neck through which all these inquiries have to pass, and however able those gentlemen are, however brilliant the experts who advise them may be, delay at first hand is un-avoidable.
We wish to avoid delay which will injure trade in several important industries affected by the tax upon linseed. Certain important trades have been prejudiced as the result of the imposition of that tax. The tax is an accomplished fact and we must accept it as such, but any consequent injury which has been done to industrial interests in this
country is the responsibility of the Government. It has been done by Government action under conditions which have no parallel so far as I am aware in our inter-Colonial relations. I am sure that the very last thing in the world which the Government desire is that the legislation which they have introduced should be unfair in its incidence upon any particular industry. For that reason it seems to me that legislation to give relief to any particular trade is a question for the Government, not for the Advisory Committee. I should like to see the new Clause go somewhat further than it does. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows a great deal about the trading interests of this country, and I feel sure that if a departure from precedent is necessary he would be the last to argue against the proposal in this new Clause.
I want to emphasise the point that this is not a. revenue tax. The Ottawa Agreements are not only trading agreements but are in a large measure political, and this tax, under normal conditions, would never have been imposed except to benefit. India. It is not, therefore a revenue tax in the strict sense of the word. If we can have the machinery of a drawback introduced it is no argument to say that its administration is difficult and that the Government may lose a certain amount of revenue if the drawback fails to function with perfect efficiency. It will be far better to lose a little revenue if we can provide a weapon by which various trades may he able to fight for the export trade the neutral markets of the world. That is a vital consideration. It cannot be too frequently repeated that other countries which are not taxed in this way are competing not only on the continent of Europe, and in America and else-where, but also in our own Colonies, and I feel sure that if this relief in the nature of a definite drawback on consignments of goods to be exported abroad was given it would relieve a real anxiety which is now felt by many important concerns in England and Scotland. I hope that the proposal will not be turned down on the ground of difficulty in administration. Difficulties are there to be overcome, and I cannot imagine that the brains which composed the Ottawa Agreements will find themselves inadequate to deal efficiently and simply with a drawback, which is urgently required by all
the industries concerned with linseed as a raw material.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I hope that the new Clause will be accepted by the Government. It does not apply only to linseed but to flour, and flour-milling is a matter of great concern to my: constituency. The flour millers do not seem to have entered into the Ottawa Agreements to any great extent and I hope, therefore, that under this new Clause they will be able to obtain more benefits than they have hitherto received. They assisted the Government in regard to the Wheat Quota Act, but there is no allowance for the exports of manufactured flour. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take this opportunity of considering their case, and will consider it favourably.

Dr. BURGIN: This proposal is intended to be helpful, and I am glad to hear that the Mover and Seconder realise that if the Clause cannot be accepted, yet, provided there is some alternative which substantially meets the point they raise, they will be satisfied. The point behind the proposal is the suggestion that the ordinary machinery of applying for a drawback through the Import Duties Advisory Committee might be a lengthy process and that injury to the trade might happen in the meantime. Whether or not there will be delay largely depends on the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and with a view to being able to make a statement to the Committee an approach has been made to the Advisory Committee. Informal conversations have taken place and we are informed that if the trade interests themselves will present to the Advisory Committee detailed proposals for drawback schemes, the committee will be ready to give the proposals immediate consideration. There seems no reason why the preparation and examination of these proposals should be deferred until this Bill becomes law. They can be submitted by all the interests concerned immediately. A drawback is very largely a matter for the trade. There must be some understanding with the trade interests themselves as to how an article upon which duty has been paid is to be dealt with when it has been made up into articles of a different character for subsequent export. Take linseed. There must be quantities
of duty-free linseed in this country. Obviously there is no suggestion in the new Clause that there should be drawback in regard to linoleum made from duty-free linseed.

Mr. WALLACE: There is no duty on linseed from the Colonies.

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member has not seen the point. There are stocks of duty-free linseed in this country at the present time, and I am pointing out that it must be a matter for the trade to say how far, when linseed is made up into linoleum, an operation for fixing a drawback is feasible. It is because the Import Duties Advisory Committee are a knowledgeable and skilled body that we think the ordinary procedure of Section 9 of the Finance Act is applicable, and having secured from the Advisory Committee an assurance that they are prepared to receive applications for drawback immediately, it remains for the trade itself to make the demand. In these circumstances, the proposed new Clause is unnecessary.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I should be glad if we could have a definition from the Parliamentary Secretary of what he means by the word "immediate." The Import Duties Advisory Committee, I understand from an answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave, are in process of considering, or are about to consider, or are immediately going to consider, the application of a duty to a list of 50 different kinds of articles. Is it suggested that they will be able, upon an application from a trade concerned in the new Clause, to give what may be called immediate attention to it? Are they going to be asked to put aside duties with which they were originally trusted under the Import Duties Act to consider a scheme for a rebate, or are we going to wait until the whole of this immense list of articles has been considered by the committee, and any other articles which are daily being put upon the list for their consideration? If that is the case, then "immediate" does not mean much. If it means what it ordinarily means, they will have to hear such application and give a decision within a few days. That is no doubt what the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) would like, but, I think we
should know, as the whole tenour of the hon. Members reply depends on what the word "immediate" means.

Mr. WALLACE: I really must ask the Parliamentary Secretary what he means by his reply. He must regard some of us as simple-minded. He said that any application made to the Advisory Committee will be immediately received. What does he mean by that? It will most certainly be received to-morrow morning. But what kind of assurance is that to give to people who are very much in earnest on this matter? What we fear is delay. I know something of this delay at first hand, and yet my hon. Friend tells me as a business man that any application will be immediately received by the Tariff Advisory Committee. I know that quite well. What I want to know is when it will be dealt with. I confess to a feeling of disappointment at the reply. I thought that the Government would have realised that this is no idle request. To my mind the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, given in a perfectly friendly way which I acknowledge and appreciate, is certainly no answer to the case which I attempted to put to the Committee. I think the Government, who are deeply concerned from the point of view of revenue and in other ways, should have dealt with this new Clause in a more serious manner, because I can assure them that we are very serious on this question.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, whether we regard it as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, has opened out an entirely new aspect of the position of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. We have always been informed that it was entirely detached and free from all political contact and influence; that it was not within the power of Members of Parliament or of the Government to go to the Committee and ask them to deal with this or that subject. To my mind, we have here clearly a case where, however it may be disguised, political pressure has been put upon the Import Duties Advisory Committee. No doubt it will be said that conversations took place and, in the agreeable atmosphere created, certain information, in reply to questions put, was obtained. That is merely covering over the fact that the Government have intimated in the
clearest manner that they desire immediate attention should be given to this particular question, which has been very properly and very wisely raised. But there are a very large number of other industries in this country which have had applications before the committee for many, many months, and have not been able to get any satisfactory reply, no doubt owing to the vast amount of work which has to be done. Because it happens to suit the convenience of the Government, why should the Import Duties Advisory Committee be asked to some extent to put aside this work? It is an invitation to other trades to come to their Members of Parliament and the Government and intimate to them, in the sort of manner in which Members of the Conservative party intimated so strongly their wishes on meat taxation, and make it, clear that the Members of the Government are expected to press forward not only linseed oil but other things.
We ought to have some clear statement to explain the attitude which has been taken up. I do not see how you can possibly disguise the fact that here, possibly for the first time—I do not know—pressure from the Government, of an indirect manner, has been put upon the committee to suit the purposes of the Government. As to the merits of the question itself, I entirely associate myself with what has been said. It is extremely important from the point of view of many workers that a drawback system should be put into operation. The matter of immediate moment is which is the quickest way and the most effective way of getting what we desire?

Mr. ATTLEE: I should like to associate myself with what has been put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that we should get some full and better reply to the appeals which have come from various sections of his supporters, and semi-detached supporters. The business position was admirably put by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the plea of honour was put by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace). He pointed out the great sacrifices the supporters of the Government made—that they ought to have some quid pro quo on that account. Hon. Members have pressed this matter on business lines and on political lines, and I hope this is to be dealt with in the
Bill. I think that the Under-Secretary was unconvincing in suggesting this should be dealt with in some hole-and-corner way by the trades running round and getting their case put before the committee. The particular way is put down by the hon. Member for South Croydon, and we have already heard from him that the Advisory Committee is not quite up to scratch, and that he has not been able to approve everything they have done. This proposed new Clause is supported by the two varieties of Liberals and not opposed by the Labour party, so that if they accept it the Government will have an opportunity to meet political sentiment on business grounds.

Mr. WALLACE: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is misrepresenting me, no doubt unintentionally, and I would be sorry if he thought I was talking about a question of honour. My reference to sacrifices was to the trades which had to make sacrifices now owing to the passing of this Bill. Any sacrifice of my own party was not even mentioned or hinted at.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. ATTLEE: I will at once withdraw. The hon. Member made some cryptic references to some undisclosed sacrifices and I thought it meant sacrifices they made in joining the Government.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I do not think that the position is quite satisfactory. I rather regret that the Member for East Wolverthampton (Mr. Mander) should have suggested that there was any impropriety in addressing this question to the Advisory Committee. The question: "If an application is sent to you, can you deal with it promptly?" is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. It does not indicate any form of political pressure. The Government are entitled to ask that question. I want to express my view that tile Government have acted with complete propriety. What I am disappointed about, and need an answer regarding, is "immediately." "Immediately," means imperfectly. They cannot work out immediately a completely satisfactory drawback scheme for linseed, because it will take some time for the trade to compile the information and for the committee to consider it. That is why I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to be able to do it crudely and imperfectly so that industries will not be prejudiced in the meantime. I want to give him a big axe which he can use with freedom, knowing that his strokes will not be as good as they might be because the axe is heavy, but people will be secure. We ought to have some explanation from the Front Bench.

Dr. BURGIN: I am afraid, from the remarks of hon. Members, that I have not been as clear as I wished in the first reply I gave to this proposal for a new Clause. Since the question of drawback was raised, in the Debate of 31st October, very considerable trouble has been taken to look into the whole of the circumstances of this matter, and conferences between the Treasury, Customs and Board of Trade have taken place. The words I read of the Advisory Committee were not idle words; they were words which were intended to have their full and complete meaning. I would say to the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) that I said nothing about the application for a drawback being "immediately received." The words I used—I have them here, and I am expressly anxious to read them—were
The Committee will be ready to give the proposals immediate consideration There seems no reason why the preparation and examination of these proposals should be deferred until the Bill becomes law.
They can be submitted by the trade interests concerned immediately. The Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) says that "immediately" means "imperfectly." The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Johnstone) gives it some other meaning. "Immediately" means at once. The committee will be more immediately ready to deal with the application than the trade will be to submit it. I am anxious to show that inquiry has been made of the Import Duties Advisory Committee as to the state of their business, and as to whether they could receive an application. Let this Committee understand that this new Clause is not as to whether there should be a drawback, but purely as to the body which should deal with the application for a drawback. That is the whole point. The whole point is one of time. The Movers of the new Clause suggested that it would be quicker if the Treasury were
to have some rough-and-ready power. The Treasury have neither the staff nor the technical assistance at their command to deal with this matter as quickly as the Import Duties Advisory Committee, who are in existence precisely for applications of this character. Now as to the time that would be taken. Let me point out, if for the purposes of an interim drawback you are going to cover precisely the ground which you would have to cover if you were making a permanent decision, you will not be likely to do it any quicker. These words, carefully chosen after consultation with the Departments concerned and with knowledgeable inquiry made as to the state of business, are that there is no difficulty in the application receiving immediate consideration. I hope they will submit their application.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I cannot believe that my two hon. Friends can be more satisfied with the second reply than with the first. I quite agree that "immediately" in the hon. Gentleman's mouth does mean immediately and at once. But I venture to think he has depreciated unduly the ability not only of his own Department, but the Treasury, Board of Trade and Customs and Excise, in saying they are not able to work out a scheme for drawbacks as quickly, efficiently, and with as great knowledge as the Import Duties Advisory Committee. That committee, as I mentioned a few moments ago, is very overworked. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply of 25th October gave a list of:
Applications which have been made to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for the imposition or modification of additional duties, or of variations in the Free List, of which public notice has been given and which are still under consideration.
He said that in the list he gave, the applications had not yet been dealt with, and I would have thought that the trades which had submitted these applications would have great cause for dissatisfaction if in the middle of this the committee—or the three gentlemen who have no particular qualifications for working out a scheme of drawbacks—were asked to interrupt their proper work and set to work, imperfectly as it may be, upon the preparation of a very elaborate scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us the information that the
Import Duties Advisory Committee had before it at this moment application for additional or increased rates of duty from industries dealing with fresh white fish, hacksaws, fresh herrings, certain pottery products, iron and steel wire netting, iron and steel wire and iron and steel wire nails, precision and manicure files, and cordage under ¼ inch in diameter. The list is interminable. It contains such other items as bentwood furniture and parts thereof, baskets, common salt, yeast, carpets, carpeting, tinsel and tinsel string, hand-driven grass and lawn mowers, bolts, nuts and screws, iron and steel rivets, boot studs and hobnails, shoe nails and rivets of iron, steel or brass; firearms, air guns, air rifles, air pistols and parts thereof, curtains, lace and embroidery, vacuum flasks and parts thereof, manufactures of alabaster—I do not see my Friend the President of the Board of Trade here—and rice starch. The answer states:
In addition the Committee have given public notice that they are considering the question of additional duties on dredgers, barges, tugs, launches, pleasure craft and other small vessels and boats, including their accompanying equipment. No application for additional duties has been made in respect of these commodities.
Then there is:
For addition to the Free List, citrate of lime, bismuth metal, non-precious stones, artificial stones and pearls, and beads not mounted, set or strung, dressed and prepared bristles, tantalum metal.
I should be sorry for myself if I were a member of a committee charged with the duty of investigating the proper duty upon innumerable articles such as these. If at the same time I were asked to prepare, on behalf of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), a most elaborate scheme of drawbacks, I should be horror-struck, and very likely I should resign. I cannot help thinking that in those circumstances my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would do well to reconsider the answer he has given, and to give a little more

encouragement to the hon. Member for South Croydon, who has always treated the Government so well, who is one of their staunchest supporters and one of the best in the country on the subject of Protection.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Before asking leave to withdraw the proposed new Clause, there are two things I want to say. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Treasury has neither the staff nor the expert knowledge to prepare a provisional scheme. He may get that over quite honestly, but he must not expect me to swallow it. If the Treasury knew that they must have a scheme by to-morrow night, it would be ready by to-morrow night. We remember what happened over silk and artificial silk. We-have in operation a system of Protection for silk and artificial silk introduced into the Finance Act by a separate Financial Resolution, and in the meantime the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Advisory Committee to work out a permanent scheme. They have been at that task for some time. That is the difference between "immediately" and "imperfectly." I want some imperfect method. I think the second reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, with the emphasis he gave it and the way he read his statement, is a fair answer. The obligation is transferred now to the industry. There is something in the Parliamentary Secretary's point that the industry may be longer in preparing a case than the Advisory Committee would be in deciding it. I hope that the industries concerned will take advantage of the very fair offer made, and in the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the proposed new Clause.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 320.

Division No. 350.]
AYES
7.18 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W)


Banfield, John William
Edwards, Charles
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pantypool)


Bernays, Robert
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Grundy, Thomas W.


Cape, Thomas
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Cove, William G.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Harris, Sir Percy


Curry, A. C.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Hicks, Ernest George


Dagger, George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Hirst, George Henry


Holdsworth, Herbert
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Thorne, William James


Janner, Barnett
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Jenkins, Sir William
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


John, William
Mender, Geoffrey le M.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Maxton, James
White, Henry Graham


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Milner, Major James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Kirkwood, David
Nathan, Major H. L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Lawson, John James
Pickering, Ernest H.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Logan, David Gilbert
Price, Gabriel
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Lunn, William
Rathbone, Eleanor



McEntee, Valentine L.
Rea, Walter Russell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McKeag, William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cooke, Douglas
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Adams. Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,W.)
Copeland, Ida
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Courtauid, Major John Sewell
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Albery, Irving James
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Hepworth, Joseph


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Craven-Ellis, William
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Apsley, Lord
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hornby, Frank


Aske, Sir Robert William
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dickle, John P.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Baldwin-Webb. Colonel J.
Donner, P. W.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Drewe, Cedric
Hurd, Sir Percy


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)


Balniel, Lord
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Duggan, Hubert John
Iveagh, Countess of


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Duncan James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Dunglass, Lard
Jamieson, Douglas


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Eastwood, John Francis
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Beaumont. Hon. R.E.B. (Porlsm'th,C.)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Ker, J. Campbell


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Ellis-Ion, Captain George Sampson
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Elmley, Viscount
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Borodale, Viscount.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Knebworth, Viscount


Bossom, A. C.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Knox, Sir Alfred


Boulton, W. W.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Bowater. Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Latham. Sir Herbert Paul


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tattoo
Falle Sir Bertram G.
Law, Sir Alfred


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Boyce. H. Leslie
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Levy, Thomas


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lewis, Oswald


Broadbent, Colonel John
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gibson, Charles Granville
Llewellin, Major John J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Burghley, Lord
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Burnett, John George
Goff, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McCorquodale, M S.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gower, Sir Robert
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Greene, William P. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
McKie, John Hamilton


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McLean, Major Alan


Castlereagh, Viscount
Grimston, R. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Magnay, Thomas


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Maitland, Adam


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W)
Guy. J. C. Morrison
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hall, Capt. W, D'Arcy (Brecon)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hanbury, Cecil
Martin, Thomas B.


Christie, James Archibald
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Clarke, Frank
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Clayton Dr. George C.
Harbord, Arthur
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hartington, Marquess of
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hartland, George A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Milne, Charles


Colman, N. C. D.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)




Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Storey, Samuel


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Robinson, John Roland
Strauss, Edward A.


Moss, Captain H. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Muirhead, M[...] A. J.
Ross, Ronald D.
Stuart, Hon. I. (Moray and Nairn)


Munro, Patrick
Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)
Summersby, Charles H.


Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Nail, Sir Joseph
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Tate, Mavis Constance


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Templeton, William P.


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Merpeth)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thompson, Luke


Nicholson. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


North, Captain Edward T.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Nunn, William
Salmon, Major Isidore
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Peake, Captain Osbert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Pearson, William G.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Train, John


Penny, Sir George
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Turton, Robert Hugh


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Scone, Lord
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Petherick, M.
Selley, Harry R.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'rverhpt'n, Bi'lst'n)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Pike, Cecil F.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wells, Sydney Richard


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Slater, John
Weymouth, Viscount


Pybus, Percy John
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Smith, Sir Jonah W (Barrow-In-F.)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ramsden, E.
Smithers, Waldron
Withers, Sir John James


Ratcliffe, Arthur
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Soper, Richard
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.



Reid, David D. (County Down)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr.


Remer, John R.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Womersley.

NEW CLAUSE—(No obligation not to reduce general ad valorem duty in respect of certain foreign goods nor to maintain scheduled agreements in force for fife years.)

Nothing in any section of this Act, shall he deemed to impose upon His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom any statutory obligation not to reduce the general ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. imposed by section one of the Import Duties Act, 1932, on certain foreign goods, or to maintain the scheduled Agreements in force for a perod of five years.—[Mr. Attlee.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, "That the Clause he read a Second time."
This Clause is designed to make a declaration that this Act shall not impose certain obligations on His Majesty's Government. The first relates to the very extraordinary provision that appears in the Agreements, under which this country is subject to the will of another Government in the matter of its own domestic affairs. It is fairly common in trade agreements for two countries to agree not to tax goods coming from each other's territory, or they might even agree to tax such goods. But here we have a provision that this country must tax goods coming from foreign countries,
and that it cannot get rid of that tax without asking the leave of various Dominion Governments. We must ask the leave of the Canadian, the Australian, the New Zealand and the South African Governments. That is quite an unprecedented position. It only shows to what a condition the British Delegation at Ottawa were reduced before they submitted to such an indignity. I cannot imagine such a thing being clone in those times that are so dear to the heart of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), the Cromwellian days. I cannot imagine that Parliament would have submitted to another country in such a way, even though it was a country under the same Crown that made the arrangement. The nearest thing I can see to this arrangement is the well-known Poynings Act of Henry VII, in which all the Acts of the Irish Parliament had to be submitted to this House. That was always considered a great indignity to Ireland. Then we have the curious position with regard to this particular obligation, that it is unilateral. You have separate agreements with separate Dominions, and, in each of them, we agree that we will not reduce the general ad valorem duty
of 10 per cent. without, their leave. Presumably there was some quid pro quo in exchange for this concession by the Government, but it is quite ineffective as regards the 10 per cent. duty, because Canada might denounce this Agreement and take away any advantage which she gave to us in exchange for the 10 per cent. duty, but we should still be bound by it because we are under a similar obligation to New Zealand. In turn, New Zealand might get rid of the Agreement and abolish any concession which she has given to us, but we should still be bound by the 10 per cent. duty because we have an agreement with South Africa.
So, we have the extraordinary position that this Government have given away a power in exchange for nothing at all. When we come to South Africa we see that it is not only a question of the duty of 10 per cent., but that special provision is made with regard to sugar. In fact, the fiscal policy of this country, over a wide territory, is now subject to the leave of a particular Dominion Government, or rather, several Dominion Governments. It means that whatever party got into power here would be bound to keep on this 10 per cent. duty. Let us take a flight into the realms of imagination. Supposing that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) were returned here with a majority in the country and a party pledged to a free breakfast table. He will not object to that. In that case, he would have to go, cap in hand, to Mr. Bennett or Mr. Mackenzie King, or whoever happened to be in office in Canada; to General Heitzog in South Africa, and to the Prime Ministers of other Dominions, and say: "Will you kindly allow me to enforce the policy which a large majority of the British people agree to be the right policy for this country," and they would be entitled to reply: "No, thank you, good morning." It is an extraordinary position.
Then we have to take these obligations in conjunction with the further obligation to maintain the scheduled Agreements in force for a period of five years. One might imagine this Government, which does so many strange things, saying, "We will submit to this indignity during our lifetime, or for a year or two because there is a crisis." Every-
thing is explained by saying that there is a crisis. But no. These Agreements are to be carried on for five years. We know that some of its Members think that this Government is going to last for five years, but some do not, and it is an unheard of thing to put an obligation of this nature on the country for a period of five years. It is an attempt to bind the House of Commons in two respects -first, to bind its domestic policy to the will of another of His Majesty's Governments in another country, and secondly, to bind the House of Commons beyond the lifetime of the present Parliament. Both these things in fact cannot be done.
What would have happened if in any of the Imperial Conferences which have been held a proposal had been made by this country that the domestic legislation of any of the Dominions should be subject to the consent of His Majesty's Government here? Anyone who takes the trouble to follow what has happened at the Imperial Conferences since they began, will observe a continuous process by which Colony after Colony—as they were formerly—and Dominion after Dominion, has insisted That they shall be entirely free from this country in their domestic policy. The keystone was put on that position by the Statute of Westminster, by which, it was thought, all the self-governing parts of the British Empire were put on a level as Dominions. But that impression has not lasted long because we find that as soon as the others have come alongside, we must drop back, and now apparently we are less than any Dominion.
It is no good saying that this is a light matter because this 10 per cent. duty is very wide, covering a vast number of goods and it must be remembered that it is a matter of acute domestic controversy. What would have been thought if a suggestion of this kind had been made in regard to any other matter of domestic controversy? Let us get away for a moment from present troubles and go back to a period with which the hon. Member for Bodmin is familiar when there were religious struggles in this country—the period of the Commonwealth. Supposing that a Government then had attempted to bind successive Parliaments to do or forbear from doing something in domestic policy according to the will, let us say, of the President
of the Dutch Republic, or the Stadt-holder, or whatever he was. Supposing Cromwell had introduced legislation by which no Parliament was to be allowed to restore the Monarchy or by which they could only do so provided they had the agreement of their fellow-republicans in, shall we say, the City of Florence. I think perhaps that is rather an anachronism, but there were plenty of republics at that time. I fancy in such a case there would have been wonderfully eloquent speeches from the Parliamentarians of that time.
Then there is the suggestion that this is only a little makeweight, a little matter of bargaining. The argument is that you cannot give effective preference to the Dominions unless you insist on keeping out foreign goods for a definite period. But we do not find any obligation of that nature on the other side. All the indignities are on the side of this country. I have heard the same plea put forward often, years ago by the Dominions, and it was opposed by all parties in the House of Commons on the ground that you could not insist on taxing your own people for the benefit of other people, in respect of goods coming from foreign countries. We have put down this proposed new Clause in order to raise a debate on this matter and to enter a protest and to ask the House of Commons to protect us against this constitutional innovation which is being thrust upon us.
It is not a mere matter of constitutional nicely. It is a vital matter. I could understand such a proposal, if, as a result of Ottawa, there had been formed some super-Imperial authority, and if a degree of sovereignty were taken away from each Dominion and entrusted to a. federal body. I could understand someone coming here and recommending that as a very good thing to do. I could imagine even the ease of a world body of that kind. But to suggest that this country shall surrender its rights of sovereignty to a sister nation of the Empire, or indeed not to one but to four or five sisters, is most amazing. On the matter of the five years duration we shall doubtless be told that you cannot make an agreement unless you do it for five years; that you must have a long term so that business men shall know where they are. That is a very odd argument
from a Government which is upsetting business men at every turn. The Secretary of State for the Colonies told us to-day that he is going to issue every year a White Paper showing the duties in force in the British Colonies. I should not have been in order in doing so or I would have asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not give a weekly return showing the duties in force in this country because we have new duties every week.
The Government say: "We must have a certain continuity, a certain regularity, so that our traders may know what they are doing." To say that is to deny the power of the House of Commons. Every trader in this country has to act under conditions laid down by a Parliament with sovereign power, and Parliament has the power to alter the conditions under which he trades. In fact, Parliament, year by year, turns out a large amount of legislation affecting traders. To nay that you cannot come to an agreement unless you make it for a long period like five years is to deny the sovereignty of Parliament. As a matter of fact, these provisions show one thing and one thing only—that the political position of the Government in the House of Commons was such that they did not dare to come back from Ottawa without an agreement, and they were prepared to accept any indignity to this country in order to get an agreement.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: The spectacle of Members on the Front Bench of the Socialist party professing fear of creating a precedent is one which I refuse to take seriously. It has always occurred to me that their real raison, d'etre in the State was that they were so tired of precedents and of the things which they found existing in the life of the country, that they desired to lead, as it were, a minor revolution against precedents. That. being so I propose to examine briefly the other arguments which have been addressed to the Committee by the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) to see whether there is anything sounder lurking in them. The suggestion apparently is that, if you enter into an agreement of this kind you thereby destroy the rights of the House of Commons of which this Committee forms part. It occurs to me, as I dare say it has occurred to others, in listening to the observations of the hon. Gentleman that you might just as well say that you
become a slave instead of a freeman when you enter into a lease to take a house for five years.
The power of the House of Commons remains exactly where it is. It remains untouched by this Agreement. Whether the House of Commons would desire, in the circumstances, to assert its powers and its rights and to break this Agreement, is another matter entirely. But to say that because we have entered into honourable obligations and put our national name to a treaty, under which we say that we will not disturb a certain state of affairs for five years, we have thereby deprived ourselves of all power over finance is to put the cart before the horse. I cannot help feeling that that is an argument advanced by an Opposition which feels that it must do its duty and oppose but that the argument upon that ground is really no sounder than the argument based upon the theory that we should be afraid of making new precedents.
Personally, I have been brought up among precedents and I rejoice to see, here and there, not infrequently, that precedents when they no longer serve their purpose can be disregarded. If it is necessary for the purpose of rehabilitating this country and doing something towards the solution of the unemployment problem by fostering trade and industry, I, for one, should not hesitate to disregard precedent notwithstanding my training. The suggestion that this part of the Agreement is unilateral makes one think that we are dealing with this matter in a law court, among lawyers, and not among people who ought to be statesmen. There is in Article 22 of the Canadian Agreement an obligation under which the Agreement as a whole is to last for five years and to continue thereafter unless denounced, at six months' notice, and in putting forward that argument the hon. Member seems to be regarding the Agreement article by article instead of regarding the Agreement as a whole as he ought to do. I therefore submit to the Committee that the reasons which have been advanced in support of the new Clause are not such as should commend themselves to the minds of those of us who desire to see these Agreements brought into force and continued.

Mr. COCKS: The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), who has just sat down, said that the Socialist party is afraid of precedents. We are not afraid of precedents, but the sort of precedent we always avoid is the precedent of surrender, and when the hon. and learned Gentleman brings forward the argument that the rights of the House of Commons may be let out on lease, I think he is going to the very limit of absurdity. We have heard a great deal about constitutional matters in this Debate, and I am still hoping that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot)—I wish he were here—will one day do his best to emulate the example of John Hampden, without drawing a sword, and perhaps lead a Boston tea party, or a Bodmin tea party, into Liverpool Docks.
I object to this Agreement., not merely on constitutional lines, but on practical lines, because I believe it will lead to disunity and trouble in the Empire itself. We have a. tax at the present time on Scandinavian timber, and we are not allowed, under the Agreement, to reduce that tax or to take it off without the consent of Mr. Bennett, or the Canadian Government. In the past, we have had a very profitable trade with Scandinavia, by which we have bought Scandinavian timber and sold a great. deal of coal in exchange. If the result of the continued imposition of this tax is that our export trade in coal suffers, there will be a considerable agitation in this country, certainly in the mining districts and among the coalowners themselves, to remove the tax on timber because it is spoiling our export trade with Scandinavia. But if we are told that we cannot take the tax off without. the consent of Mr. Bennett, there will be a good deal of trouble in this country and agitation against Canada itself.
It seems to me that the House of Commons, by putting on this tax, which cannot be reduced or taken off without the permission of the Canadian Government, is allowing Mr. Bennett to put his foot upon our necks. I do not like to repeat these things, but I am told that during the Conference at Ottawa there were certain occasions on which it was very difficult indeed to get the British delegates even to shake Mr. Bennett's hand; and now we are going to allow him to put his boots upon our necks. My
position in this matter has been supported by a great Canadian statesman, Mr. Mackenzie King, successor to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the great supporter of Imperial preference in the days of the late lamented Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. Mr. Mackenzie King said, on Article 3 of this Agreement:
It is an indefensible proposition…I doubt if a single member of Vile Canadian Parliament would support such a restriction upon the control of Canada over her own fiscal policy. It is undeserving of the support of any part of the Empire.
Those are the words of a great Canadian statesman, and I do not think I can add to their strength by any words of mine, but I commend those words to the Committee and to the Government.

Mr. PIKE: I should not have intervened but for the suggestion of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) that the party that he represents does not object to precedents, that, in fact, it welcomes them, but that it objects to the precedent of surrender. That is very peculiar, coming from that side of the House. It is not many weeks ago that, at Leicester, the Executive of the Opposition party were not only subjected to surrender, but absolutely admitted and confessed that, although they might have power given to them by the people of this country to change the policy of this country, and although they would appeal to that power on a definite issue, they would, before putting that issue into effect, go again to the Executive and ask permission to do it. Yet they submit to this Committee that this Agreement is giving to Mr. Bennett the power to say, "We have a public that has elected us to do a certain thing, but before we can do it we are asking your permission."
That, in my opinion, is an entire misconception of the trite position of this Agreement. The representatives of this Government at Ottawa, in coming to this Agreement, decided definitely that it would he not only in the interests of Canada that the Agreement should continue for five years, but also in our own interests, and I am not one who would override the suggestion that has often been made from this side, and scoffed at from the other side, that our Ministers there were watching our interests at at home equally with those of the Empire as a whole. I am convinced that any attempt to introduce this Clause
would not only weaken considerably the value of the Agreement in itself, but would tend to make other Agreements in the future almost impossible.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I want to reply very briefly to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), who drew the analogy of a man entering into a lease for five years, and said that that man was not depriving himself of any essential powers, and was acting in a way which no one would regard as putting him in a position of slavery. That is true, but he would be himself making the agreement, which he himself would afterwards be called upon to keep. But in this case it is the Government that is making an Agreement, which they are seeking to make different people keep. They know very well that by the time this question is referred to the decision of the nation, before the five years have elapsed, the strong probability is that other people, with entirely different views, will be put in their place, and in effect they are seeking to cramp the style of their successors, if I may use that expression. That is the essential illogicality of the position that has been taken up.
The Conservative party is here, once again, trying to do what it has so often tried to do in the past, and that is to say "Whether we have a majority in the House of Commons or whether we are in a minority, we will take good care that we rule somehow, either by an arrangement such as this, or by what may be done it) another place." So, with the full knowledge that, the Agreements into which they are entering are not matters of a small duty here or there, unconsidered, in a small corner of the Treaty, but refer to what has been one of the major issues of political controversy for a great many years, at any rate since the time of the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain—knowing that, and knowing that any Government that succeeds them is likely to disagree with them on that point, they deliberately try to tie the hands of their successors.
I wish they would for once put themselves in the other man's place, and imagine what would happen if a Liberal or a Labour Government, had, let us say, in pursuit of the agreement which the late and regretted Mr. William Graham
tried to arrange, entered into an agreement which would have barred the Conservatives from putting on any tariffs through the total scope of any tenure of office that they might expect to have after the next election. They would not have dreamed of regarding themselves as bound by that. They would have said, "Everyone knows our policy, and that if we are elected with a majority in this House as a Conservative Government, tariffs are not only the thing that we say, but the only thing we have ever found ourselves able to say at all, as a remedy for economic evils; and for any others to attempt to anticipate us and to say, 'You may come into power, but when there you shall be handicapped and handcuffed, and no part of your policy shall be carried out,' is absurd."
They would have said that, and rightly so, but they are trying to do that here, at any rate for five years, during which, in our view, irreparable damage may be done, and a situation may arise when some other Government has the power, apart from these Agreements, to come to another conclusion, and it may be a matter of months. If we can act now, we shall save the country from a great disaster, but if we have to wait till the five years have elapsed, it may be too late to do anything at all. Yet we are told that it is right and proper that this Parliament, legislating in 1932, and without a full knowledge of the circumstances that may be existing in 1934 or 1935, is able to assume omniscience and say that what we are deciding now is bound to be right, and nothing is to be undone unless you can get all these varied interests, to which the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) referred, to agree
The whole tragedy of the situation is that the interests of those at home and the interests of those in the Dominions are not always the same. We have to face that fact, and I wish it were not so. We saw it the other night, when arguing about meat, and it was apparent that the interests of the farmer at home in the matter of meat and those of the farmer in the Dominions were not the same, even in the view of members of the Conservative party. We are not going to get that unanimity, unfortunately; and in these circumstances, with the knowledge that
a different Government may be in power and that altogether different circumstances may prevail, I suggest that it is monstrous, and not merely a constitutional point in the sense of being a matter of precedent, but that it is trying to do something which is in itself absurd and which is bound in practice to break down. Therefore, I associate myself very warmly with the proposed new Clause.

Mr. REMER: The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) seemed to have a fear that the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) at some future date might come into this House with a majority pledged to a free breakfast table, but not be able to put it into effect owing to these Agreements. The next election, I presume, will be about four years hence, and four out of the five years of the Agreements will have run before that happy event, according to the hon. Members, will have happened, and we shall have had four years' experience of the Ottawa Agreements. I venture to predict that when we have had four years' experience of the Agreements and of their beneficial results, neither the right hon. Member for Darwen nor the hon. Member for Limehouse will dare put into his election address that he is going to repeal the Ottawa Agreements. Instead of that, they will even keep in the background the fact that they opposed them in this House when they were going through. The fears that have been expressed in this House to-day are, in my view, utterly groundless.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: When the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) referred to the suggestion of an hon. Member on this side that these Agreements are a surrender, he alluded to an incident at the Leicester Conference of the Labour party. I would remind him that the executive at Leicester at least surrendered to their own countrymen, and not to foreigners. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, not to Mr. Bennett., but to their own countrymen. I want to look at the question of the long lease which was referred to by an hon. Member opposite, not from the point of view of a lawyer, but from the point of view of a miner who is in this House representing colliers. This Agreement puts duties on hundreds of articles
from foreign countries for at least five years. We cannot afford to ignore the mining industry, for in dealing with the problem of unemployment, this country must go back sooner or later to the question of its mineral wealth and its development. Therefore, I am trying to consider—perhaps selfishly, although I think I am entitled to do it—how this long lease will benefit the mining industry. There is nothing in this Agreement that gives the slightest indication of any return to prosperity for that industry. Quite the reverse is the case. Since the Ottawa Agreements have been discussed, foreign countries have had indications that their imports are to be heavily taxed, and as a result they are already discussing the lowering of the quota of English coal.
I suggest that Members on the Government side will be pleased within five years if they can have the opportunity of reconsidering some of the proposals embodied in the Ottawa Agreement, but they are robbing themselves of that opportunity. Although it has been suggested that this is not a precedent, the early discussion on the Bill showed that we have never had a five years' extension of a trade agreement in this form before. The countries which have been our best purchasers of coal are likely to be more affected than any others by the taxes that will be imposed by this Bill. How far will this injure the future of the mining industry, and what opportunity will the Miners' Federation have of urging the Government to deal with the mining problem at the World Economic Conference if our hands are to be tied for five years? The Government are handing over to the Canadian Government the right to continue these arrangements for five years. They have made no provision in the Agreement for a review——

Mr. PIKE: Will the hon. Member look at Article 23?

Mr. PRICE: We can alter nothing in this House except by the consent of the Dominions. If there is to be any correction of that, let us have it from the Ministers who are in charge of the Bill. It is on these grounds that we feel alarmed. We could have understood agreements being made for a period if there had been provision for further con-
sideration in this House because of any mistake that might have been made. We say that there are mistakes, and we shall be able to prove in less than a month, that there has been a grave mistake, and this Government will regret it. The Gov-eminent have tied their hands, however, and the coal industry will suffer more than ever before as the result. I support the proposed new Clause because the Bill hands over to the Dominions the right to say how this country's economic life shall be governed, and because it ties it up for five years. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) suggests that at the next General Election many of us will he afraid to admit that we denounced this Agreement. The only fear I have is that I shall lose an opportunity of making my protest, and so be prevented from being able to say at the next election that I did it.

Mr. HOPE-BELISHA: This proposed new Clause raises what become known in the early stage of this Debate as the Constitutional issue, and it raises that issue in a form in which I should have thought it had been finally disposed of by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and by the admission of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). What does the proposed Clause seek to propound? First, that nothing in the Bill shall bind His Majesty's Government not to reduce the general ad valorem duty; and second, that nothing shall bind His Majesty's Government to maintain the Scheduled Agreements in force for a period of five years. Those are the two propositions. What does my hon. Friend mean by them? He can only mean that no Agreement entered into at Ottawa shall be held to bind Parliament. That is what he must mean, and that is the form in which this constitutional issue was originally raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen. He set out to say that there was an analogy between the Ottawa Agreements and all other commercial agreements entered into with foreign Powers. He said that there was an anology because he was then under the impression, as indeed he stated, that none of our commercial agreements endured for a period of years. All of them, he said, were terminable on short notice being given. On it being demonstrated to him that, far from that being
the case, the reverse was true, he very fairly withdrew that contention.
But, he said, there was a difference between a commercial agreement not to raise a duty and a commercial agreement not to reduce a duty. It was all very well, he said, to make an arrangement with Greece, whereby you should tax their currants at not more than, say, 2s., and to enter into a similar agreement with Australia whereby you should undertake not to tax foreign currants at less than 2s. That contention has been undermined by the right hon. Gentleman's representative this evening, my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith). He said, virtually "Suppose the late Government had gone, let us say, to Geneva, and -had bound this country not to raise its taxes for a period of years, the Conservative party would have rightly protested." There we have the hon. Member saying that there is no difference in principle in agreements not to raise taxes and agreements not to lower taxes.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: I was not stating anything of the kind. I was not saying there was no distinction. I was arguing the practical point, and not the constitutional point, and saying that in practice the Conservative party would not have regarded themselves bound.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am content with the proposition as my hon. Friend now states it, because it is what I am saying. There is no distinction in practice or principle between binding a country in one sense or another. I will quote the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen:
It is of the very essence of my case that these Agreements prevent the House for the first time from removing burdens upon the people if it thinks fit to do so.… Never in all the long history of this Parliament has legislation been proposed that before Parliament can lower its taxes, the assent of some outside authority should be obtained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1932; cols. 496 and 499, Vol. 269.]
Within a week of the right hon. Gentleman making those two assertions, which have been repeated to-night, they were completely disposed of by the authority of the Chair itself. What did you, Sir Dennis, rule in response to the specific interrogatories of my right hon. Friend? You ruled last Friday:
Hon. Members will notice that Parliament is not asked by this Bill to adopt the Agreements or to sanction the Agreements. Parliament is invited, in the terms used in the Agreements, to pass certain legislation in fulfilment of these Agreements.'
These Agreements
are scheduled merely for purposes of convenience.
Referring to the Title and Preamble, you said:
Its purpose is not to give effect to 'the Scheduled Agreements.…It asks Parliament to pass such legislation as is necessary in order to enable effect to be given to those portions of the Agreements which require legislation in order to make them effective."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1932; cols. 1334–35, Vol. 269.]
Then my right hon. Friend went on to ask two specific questions which have been raised again. He said to the Chair:
No reference to these undertakings is made in the Clauses of the Bill, and I would ask whether the fact that these undertakings appear in the Schedule without being confirmed in any of the Clauses gives them statutory sanction. I would ask, further, Whether, if this Bill, embodying these Agreements in its Schedule, is passed in its present form, that would in any degree preclude this Parliament or its successor from varying any of these duties at any time that might be thought fit.
He appealed for the Ruling of the Chair, and this is the answer he gets from the Chairman:
The right hon. Gentleman has given me an easier task than before. The reply is in the negative to both of his questions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 28th October, 1932; cols. 1339–40, Vol. 269.]
I say what the Chair has said, that there is nothing in these Agreements which takes away from the right of Parliament legally to reduce any tax at any time. There is nothing in this Bill which gives sanction to these Agreements for five years. All that this Bill does is to say that during the duration of these Agreements the Government can legally exercise certain powers. What are the powers? We are not asking for any powers in relation to the Import Duties Act. We already have it upon the Statute Book that the 10 per cent. ad valorem. duty shall be prolonged until such time as Parliament chooses to take it off. We have passed that legislation; and, indeed, in every Budget, in almost every Act imposing taxation, the duties imposed endure until they are remitted by the House of Commons. The duties on sugar, tea, coffee, wines and spirits all continue
from year to year automatically unless they are varied by the House of Commons. Sometimes, as in the Safeguarding Duties Act, they are imposed for a specific period, namely, five years. But the general principle is that a tax remains either for a specific period or until such time as it be remitted, and that is the position with regard to the ad valorem duties. What else do we do in this Bill? We take authority to charge certain duties of Customs.

Mr. COVE: May I ask——

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am following up a serious argument, and I would ask my hon. Friend to permit me to do so.

Mr. COVE: I am merely asking for information. Will the hon. Gentleman explain to us the meaning of Article 3; and will he tell us, further, whether, if Parliament exercises this right, it will not be regarded as a breach of faith with the Colonies?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Really, I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop one argument at a time. I will certainly break off to explain to him the meaning of Article 3. It says:
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom"—
not Parlianient—undertake that the ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. in the Import Duties Act, 1932, shall not be reduced except with the consent of His Majesty's Government in Canada. That was not the point I was dealing with, but the hon. Member will see how well it illustrates what I have been saying. This does not impose any obligation upon Parliament. It says: "His Majesty's Government." We are dealing with a Bill, and it is not stated in this Bill that this tax shall not be remitted. All we do say——

Mr. COVE: May I ask—

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I finish my sentence?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has been long enough in the House to know that he cannot interrupt a speech if the Member who is speaking does not give way.

Mr. COVE: I have been here long enough to know that a question can be asked——[Interruption.]

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am in the middle of a sentence, and perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to conclude it before interrupting me again. I would remind him that we are in the Committee stage of the Bill, and that he can make as many speeches as he likes. Let me pursue one argument to its conclusion. In reply to my hon. Friend I say that when certain Ministers at Ottawa signed an Agreement they undertook—and they are under a moral obligation, but not under a legal obligation—to see that what they undertook should be, to the best of their ability, carried out. That is a moral obligation; but no legal obligation is imposed upon Parliament. How could it be? This Assembly is supreme. Lest my hon. Friend should think me discourteous, I will now give way to him; but perhaps I have answered his point.

Mr. COVE: Go on.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What I was saying when my hon. Friend interposed is that we do charge certain duties of Customs. There is nothing novel about that. That is done in many an Act of Parliament. It was done in the Import Duties Act, the Abnormal Importations Act, and it is done in every Budget. There is nothing unconstitutional about a Clause which imposes duties. We give certain preferences to the British Empire and we extend certain preferences. There is nothing novel in that. In the Finance Act, 1926, we gave preferences which were to endure for 10 years. We merely continue those preferences. In another part of the Bill we regulate the supply of meat over a period of time, in the same way that my hon. Friends opposite regulated in the Coal Mines Act the supply of coal over a period of time. There is nothing in this Bill which hears any imprint of unconstitutionalism upon it. All the Bill does is to give the Government certain powers, which it does not at present possess, and those powers are only to endure while these Agreements endure. There is nothing in this Bill which would justify our registering a protest against any section of it which says that the ad valorem, duties cannot be reduced or that the Agreements shall last for five years. Nothing whatever of the kind appears in the Bill. The pro-
posed new Clause is absolutely unnecessary, and it is not only unnecessary but harmful, because it will place upon record that those who entered into these Agreement at Ottawa did not intend to use all their powers and all their influence to see that they were implemented. At any time this Bill can be repealed by another Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), making a fantastic supposition, said that if the right hon. Member for Damen were returned with a large majority, he would not be able to take off these taxes. The right hon. Member for Darwen has already said that he would do so, has announced that he does not consider himself bound by these arrangements. He is legally entitled to make that announcement, regrettable though it be, and my hon. Friends opposite, though I do not know whether they go so far could also make that announcement. All that we say is that while in law nothing binds Parliament for five years or for any other period, and while there is nothing in this Bill which is irrevocable, that we, as long as we have influence, will use all our authority and all our persuasion to see that the signatures of those Ministers who signed these Agreements are honoured.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not a legal expert on these matters, but the extraordinary doctrine which the lawyers on the benches opposite have set out is that in some mysterious way we, the Government, can sign a document which does not mean what the words would appear to mean on any ordinary interpretation. Does the hon. Gentleman contend that the Agreements would be valid without the vote of this House? We must have the vote of the House approving these Agreements; and, if we approve them, surely we are in honour bound to stand by them. It is said that the vote of the House on these Schedules has nothing whatever to do with it, and that all we are doing is registering a sort of moral obligation that has been come to. Does that apply to the rest of the Agreements, or only to this article? It may be that this House of Commons is attempting through these Agreements to bind the next House of Commons. I can understand that the constitutional argument is that one Parliament cannot bind another.
We take our stand on that when we say that we are not bound by this, and that we shall vote against it, but that does not get away from the fact that the present Government, with its majority, is implementing an Agreement that declares that for a certain period the Agreement shall not be departed from without the consent of the Canadian. Government. That is putting us for five years in the position of fixing our tariffs and our taxation at the will of our friends in Canada.
It is not right to put forward the analogy of the Budget, because that is an untrue analogy. It is no analogy at all. It is quite true that the tobacco, tea and other duties are passed by us in a lump in one evening, but it is also true that any hon. Member of the Committee can move the omission of any one of those duties and that, if the Committee so decide, those duties come out. I know I shall be told that we can do so in this case but, if that is so, I do not know what is the object of having this provision in at all I am told that we cannot alter the Schedule because it is not legally binding but is only a moral agreement—whatever that means—between the Ministers. But Ministers have no entity as rulers of this country, without permission of this House; you cannot get away from that fact. No amount of legal hair-splitting and argument can get away from the fact that, if the House of Commons carries this Bill with the Schedules, it will be giving legal sanction to what you call "moral agreement." About that there cannot be any question whatever.
Are the rest of the Schedules simply a moral agreement between the Governments in which the House of Commons has no right of a voice? I do not understand that argument one bit. I appreciate the fact—and that is why we say that we will not be bound by these Agreements—that one Parliament can undo what a previous Parliament does. It is very dangerous for the good relationship between ourselves and the Dominions that this sort of Agreement should be made. The Dominions will be able to say either to a Liberal Government or a Labour Government: "This is a very hard thing, that you should attempt to break an Agreement solemnly entered into and implemented by the British
Parliament after full discussion." You are attempting to put future Governments in that position. I argue this upon the words as they appear to me, and as a layman, after listening to the discussion. The cold, common-sense, ordinary view of it is that these Schedules would be of no effect, that the Agreements at Ottawa would be of no effect, and that not one single word of them would be of any effect, without the vote of this House of Commons. That being so, you are attempting to bind the House and the country for five years.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I apologise for intervening at this late stage of the discussion. I should not have intervened at all, had it not been for the speech that has just been delivered by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He said, referring to the supposition that we might at some time in the future come to occupy the Ministerial benches, that that was a "fantastic supposition." I want to ask him since when has it been fantastic? He did not think it was fantastic 18 months ago. I want to know when the moment came that it became fantastic. I suppose that it was the moment when he ceased to be associated with us. No one in this Committee has a greater admiration than I have for the brilliant gifts of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, but I cannot think that even that loss is sufficient to make fantastic the supposition that he did not think was fantastic 18 months ago.
The point that we and our hon. Friends on the Labour benches are endeavouring to make is perfectly simple. It is clear that no House of Commons can bind its successors. We want the next Parliament to be free to exercise its rights without compelling the Government of the day to break their Agreement with the Dominions. That is, simply and clearly, the point that we are endeavouring to make. We do not want the next Government to have to choose between its moral obligation to the electorate and its moral obligations towards the Governments of the Empire, but that is the choice, and the very invidious choice, which they may very well have to make after the next general election. The Financial Secretary said, and I took down his words, that there was no distinction in practice or in principle between an agreement not to raise taxes
and an agreement not to lower taxes. I submit that it is a vital distinction, and one of which a great deal more will be heard in future years.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in a Debate the other day, said that this House was here to consider the redress of grievances. Historically he was not quite correct. The first function of this House is, and always has been, during the many centuries of its existence, to vote taxation or, in the alternative, to refuse to vote taxation. The distinction between the right to raise taxation and the right to lower taxes is very real. The function of initiating taxation and of proposing new taxes has never, at any time, been part of the functions of this House. It has always been part of the prerogative of the Crown. I suggest that the whole power and prestige of this House, right from the time when the knights and burgesses first assembled at Westminster, is due to its power to refuse to vote either the whole of the taxes demanded or any particular tax.
By bringing this Agreement forward you are guilty of a breach of the traditions of this House. Even to-day, when we want to raise any question with regard to the administration of a Department, there is one way in which we have to do it. We have to move to reduce the Minister's salary by £100, or to move to reduce taxation in some other way. Even when my hon. Friends on the Labour benches want to increase the amount in some direction, they cannot propose it, but they have to put it in the form of a reduction. Right through the history and present practice of this House, runs the very vital distinction between the right to raise taxation and the right to lower taxation. We have insisted on this point right through these Debates. It is not merely an abstruse legal or constitutional point. It may be that one House cannot bind its successor, but this is at any rate an attempt by the Government of the day to interfere with the rights of the House of Commons, and we believe that the rights of the House of Commons are a matter of vital importance to every citizen of this country.

Mr. COCKS: I do not want to press the Financial Secretary too hardly, because I recognise that he is in a very difficult position. Indeed, ray feeling of
chivalry would prompt me to go over to his side and support him. I think it is scandalous that not a single one of the Ottawa delegates is here to support him, but that this Bill should be left entirely in the charge of himself and his ex, Liberal colleague. I only rise to make one point, which I think is important. The Financial Secretary put forward an extraordinary constitutional position when he said just now that this agreement was not binding upon the House, but was simply a moral obligation incurred by certain Ministers who went to Ottawa. As my Leader has said, those Ministers only went to Ottawa because they were representative of a majority in this House, and, surely, if this Vote is taken to-night, that moral obligation, incurred by Ministers, is also incurred by the House. It would be very difficult for us to say that this Agreement, made by certain people—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin)—is not also a moral obligation upon the House of Commons which sanctioned it. Surely, in those circumstances, we are under a moral obligation, whatever the legal position may be, to abide by it. That is the point which I think should be answered by the Financial Secretary. He cannot ride off by saying, "We are not making any constitutional precedent, but simply entering into a moral obligation." We think that the broad and high point of view which the House of Commons should take is that a moral obligation and a constitutional obligation are one and the same thing.

Mr. MANDER: Listening to the Debate I thought that the Financial Secretary made a pronouncement of very considerable importance, whether accidentally or otherwise, and one which will be read in the Dominions with considerable surprise, although I must say I heard it with a good deal of satisfaction. What is the doctrine that he lays down? As I understand it, he says that the promise given to the Dominions at Ottawa was simply that the Government as at present constituted would do their best with the present House of Commons to try and get the Agreements, to which they set their
hands over there, put into law, but that, beyond using their powers with the House of Commons, they are not bound in any way. Clearly that does not bind the next House of Commons, and it does not bind the Liberal party or the Labour party; they are perfectly free; and, if another Government took office in this House of Commons, they would not be bound either.
I can imagine a state of affairs arising in which the protective policy of the Government went so far that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and his colleague might feel that there was so wide a departure from Liberal principles that the strain upon their consciences had become more than they could really bear, and possibly the Junior Lord of the Treasury now on the Front Bench (Dr. Morris-Jones), stimulated by his constituents and his local association, might feel that he, too, was being asked to go to a greater length than could be considered reasonable. If that lamentable situation were to arise, and the two hon. Members now representing the National Government so ably on the Front Bench, accompanied by their leaders and the rest of the Government, felt obliged to resign, there might possibly be a purely Conservative Government in office, and they, on the doctrine laid down to-night, although they might accept that obligation, would not be bound to use their moral authority with the present House of Commons. We have had to-night a statement of first-class importance, quite different from what the country was first led to believe, and different, I believe, from what the Dominions were led to believe at Ottawa. I hope that all those concerned, particularly overseas, will take due note of it, and will express no surprise at the action which may be taken at the earliest opportunity by the Liberal party or the Labour party, if they happen to come into office, or if they are in office together. [Interruption.]

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Lest otherwise I might appear discourteous, I will to the best of my ability try to answer very briefly the points which have been raised. In the first place, the important pronouncement referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) was not made by me, it was made by his Leader, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel).

Mr. MANDEB: He is not a Member of the Government.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, but that makes it far more significant. He said that we must be free in the future to take such action as to modification or repeal as conditions may require. He does not consider himself to be bound. I should have hoped that he would have taken the line that was taken by the Leader of the Opposition, who makes a distinction between legal and moral obligations, and that he would say that, although it may be true that we are not legally bound—that one Government is not legally bound by the acts of its predecessor—there is very often a moral obligation.
I will give my hon. Friend an instance. Suppose that the Government entered into a Disarmament Treaty whereby we undertook not to build ships, say at Devonport, for five years. That would affect me very seriously, but we might agree to limit our building of ships and our construction of artillery. The next Government, of course, would not be bound by any ratification by this House of that agreement; the next Government could reverse the decision; and when you are dealing with continuing obligations that is always so—there is a difference between the legal position and the moral position. Indeed, it is well known that every Government, from whatever quarter of the House it may have come, has entered into certain agreements with foreign countries, whether Germany, or Russia, or Greece, or Japan, or France, and those agreements have always involved some obligations which are morally binding, but not legally binding, upon their successors. The argument as to duration is completely disposed of by the recognition of that fact. There is no question about that, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen himself abandons that argument by admitting that he was under a misapprehension about the analogy of the foreign treaties—that he had thought that foreign commercial treaties could all be denounced at short notice, but that he now recognises, in view of what he was told in the House, that he was under a mistake.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), who cannot admire me as much as I admire
him, revived again the distinction between entering into an agreement undertaking not to lower taxation, and entering into an agreement undertaking not to raise taxation. Perhaps I did my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) an injustice, but, fortunately, I find that exactly what I attributed to him was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). He said:
I said suppose Mr. William Graham had succeeded in his Free Trade activities and had made agreements with foreign countries, that no additional duties should be laid upon them for five or ten years, thus barring out the possibility of carrying out a Protectionist policy in this country or the policy of Imperial preference, would the Conservative party have agreed that that was a proper constitutional course?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1932; col. 498, Vol. 269.]

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: On that, surely my hon. Friend should remember that, When my right hon. Friend quoted Mr. Graham's experience and used that in illustration of the argument that where there is a subject of deep and fierce political controversy marking a cleavage of parties it was an unjust thing for one party to bind its successor for a period of years, he was not at that time dealing with a grave constitutional issue. It was a question of fairness and honourable obligation between one party and another in the State.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not disputing that for an instant. I am dealing with the entirely different point, whether there is a difference in principle between saying, for instance, to Greece, "We will not tax your currants at more than 2s.," and saying to Australia, "We will not tax foreign currants at less than 2s." Is there a distinction in principle between undertaking not to raise and not to lower taxation? My right hon. Friend argues here, "If Mr. Graham had undertaken not to raise taxation, the Conservative party would have been entitled to say, But you are binding us for the future in respect of something on which we do not desire to be bound.'"

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Not on constitutional grounds.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not mind whether my hon. Friend calls this a political ground or a constitutional
ground. I am dealing with the question whether there is a distinction in principle between raising and lowering a tax, and that argument is given away by this statement. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about constitutional quibbles. I share his contempt for constitutional quibbles. This matter was not raised by us. It was raised originally by right hon. Gentlemen on those benches, and it is now being raised again from these benches. I personally agree with the general attitude of the party opposite, who say: "If we want to do something, and it has not been clime before, we shall do it." I prefer to take the broader view. If somebody is going to tell me that we are doing something illegal, I must enter into the argument on that basis and disprove the allegation for what it is worth, and, in doing so, I rely on no sophistry and no ingenuity of my own. I give you the conclusive answer which was given from the Chair which I read to the Committee to disprove that there is anything in this Bill which binds Parliament for five years or restrains Parliament from reducing taxation.

Mr. LANSBURY: We ought to be clear about this. We are going to vote with the idea that the House of Commons, if it carries this Bill and the Schedules, will be undertaking and implementing the same moral obligations which His Majesty's Ministers entered into when they signed the documents at Ottawa, and we object to that being done. Although it is true that all the lawyers have proved to their own satisfaction that one Parliament cannot, bind another, it is equally true that, when a certain number of statesmen representing the Dominions and the home Government meet together and solemnly enter into an Agreement, and this House sanctions that Agreement, it is begging the question to say it is not binding. I do not think any Parliament would want to undo it without very considerable thought and perhaps considerable negotiation, and we think Parliament ought not to be put in that position.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I rise only to make a short comment, because in the absence of my right hon. Friend I am bound to traverse what has been said by the hon. Gentleman who has been speaking for
the Government. Surely it was part of my right hon. Friend's case, as stated in the House, that there had been from the beginning of Parliamentary history a great and fundamental distinction between the power to impose taxes and the power to take taxes off. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with what was said by my right hon. Friend, but I refer hon. Members to what was said last week in the House when the case was again put by my right hon. Friend and an essential admission was made by the Foreign Secretary, that in this matter of carrying an agreement to which the majority of the House attach great importance a very considerable innovation was being made.
I do not myself attach great importance to constitutional precedent. I believe the welfare of the people of this country overrides any question of the constitution. But I am sure that, where a rule has been built up during many generations, you will usually find a good reason for it. Times come when those rules can be set aside, and they have been set aside, but, if you can trace in our Parliamentary history some regulation established by our forbears and supported and maintained in successive generations, behind that rule or regulation is usually the welfare of this country and the good of this House. Some of those regulations are now being broken in upon. I am not pleading for an alteration in the constitution if the constitution stands in the way of procedure in this House or of the well-being of the general community, but where, as in this instance, you are doing what has never been done before, and where you are carrying something which means that the determination in relation to the taxation of the people will no longer rest wholly with those in this House, but may be dependent upon decisions elsewhere, that establishes a very grievous precedent in the history of the country and of the House.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I rise also to make a comment. I have been alarmed at the tendency of the Debate. I thought the Leader of the Liberal party and the Leader of the Opposition, when first of all this point was raised, safeguarded themselves by saying that they would not consider themselves bound by any decision that the House made in respect to
this matter. It seems to me that this is going to be raised again in some future Parliament and the speeches made now will be quoted by the various contestants for their respective points of view. I profoundly disagree with all those who have been pointing out the fundamental departure that is now being embarked upon, because to the extent that they prove their case our freedom of action will be limited. The speeches that have been made this evening are really dangerous. They are all pointing out that we are re-writing the Constitution. We have the power to re-write it, but, if we re-write it now, it will limit us in future.

I want to take the view that we are not re-writing the Constitution, but that we are doing a perfectly normal thing, and I hope we shall deal with it in a perfectly normal way, and that we shall not consider ourselves bound, any more than Governments in the past, by whatever this Parliament is doing at this moment, but shall consider ourselves as free as they consider that they are at present. I hope we shall not go on with this argument very much longer.

Question put, "That the. Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 268.

Division No. 351.]
AYES
[8.55 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Betsy, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Rea, Walter Russell


Cove, William G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Curry, A. C.
Janner, Barnett
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
John, William
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmors)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Leonard, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert



Grant ell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (MIddlesbro',W)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. G.




Macdonald.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Drewe, Cedric


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Duckworth, George A. V.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Duggan, Hubert John


Albery, Irving James
Burghley, Lord
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l, W.)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Donolass, Lord


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Burnett, John George
Eastwood, John Frannis


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Apsley, Lord
Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Asks, Sir Robert William
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Eiliston, Captain George Sampson


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Elmley, Viscount


Atholl, Duchess of
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Erskine, Lard (Weston-super-Mare)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Christie, James Archibald
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Clarke, Frank
Everard, W. Lindsay


Balniel, Lord
Clayton Dr. George C.
Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolln


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fox, Sir Gifford


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsmith,C.)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cooke, Douglas
Ganzonl, Sir John


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Copeland, Ida
Gibson, Charles Granville


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Blindell, James
Craven-Ellis, William
Glossop, C. W. H.


Boulton. W. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Ginckstein, Louis Halle


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crooke, J. Smedley
Goff, Sir Park


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Crossley, A. C.
Gower, Sir Robert


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cruebdas, Lieut.-[...]lonel Bernard
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Greene, William P. C.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Dickle, John P.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Broadbent, Colonel John
Donner, P. W.
Grimeton, R. V.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
McKie, John Hamilton
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
McLean, Major Alan
Salt, Edward W.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Hanbury, Cecil
Maitland, Adam
Scone, Lord


Hanley, Dennis A.
MakIns, Brigadier-General Ernest
Selley, Harry R.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Harbord, Arthur
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hartland, George A.
Martin, Thomas B.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Slater, John


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hepworth, Joseph
Milne, Charles
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Moison, A. Hugh Elsdaie
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Smithers, Waldron


Hornby, Frank
Moreing, Adrian C.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Moss, Captain H. J.
Soper, Richard


Howard, Tom Forrest
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Munro, Patrick
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Storey, Samuel


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Strauss, Edward A.


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
North, Captain Edward T.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hurd, Sir Percy
Nunn, William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Pearson, William G.
Summersby, Charles H.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Penny, Sir George
Sutcliffe, Harold


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Tate, Mavis Constance


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Templeton, William P.


Jamieson, Douglas
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bllst'n)
Thompson, Luke


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Pike, Cecil F.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wlck-on-T.)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Pybus, Percy John
Turton, Robert Hugh


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Kimball, Lawrence
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Knebworth, Viscount
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Law, Sir Alfred
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Wells, Sydney Richard


Leckie, J. A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Weymouth, Viscount


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Levy, Thomas
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Lewis, Oswald
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Remer, John R
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Wise, Alfred R.


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Robinson, John Roland
Withers, Sir John James


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.



MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Runge, Norah Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


McCorquodale, M. S.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Mr. Womersley and Dr. Morris-


McDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Jones.


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving for goods in transit through foreign territory.)

Nothing in this Act shall exclude any goods grown, produced, or manufactured in any part of the British Empire, the Government of which is a party to one of the scheduled agreements, from the advantages of any preferential arrangements under the provisions of this Act, notwithstanding that they may have passed through the territory of a foreign country in transit.—[Mr. White.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this new Clause, which stands in my name and that of the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), is to see
that no produce or goods manufactured within the British Empire are precluded from benefiting from the preferences embodied in these Agreements owing to the fact that they may have had to pass, on their way to this country, through foreign territory. In fact, it is to make sure that all the produce of the Empire shall be in the same favoured position as the produce of Northern Rhodesia., Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland by the arrangement which was made in the Bill to secure their position from possible mishap. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will realise that this Clause is not in any sense hostile to the purposes of the Bill. In fact, I have every reason to believe that he is in complete sympathy with the purpose of it. He said so the other night
when we were discussing the question of Canadian wheat. He explained to the Committee that he had been at pains, with his advisers, in going into the matter, and he regretted that he was unable to concede the point raised by the hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) who moved an Amendment in order to secure that all Canadian wheat should have the benefit of the Preference.
I hope that the sympathy of the Financial Secretary will on this occasion resolve itself into some practical form, and that, even if this Clause cannot be accepted as it stands, he may be able with the ingenuity of his advisers to make some alternative suggestion which may overcome a very serious and grave difficulty. When the matter was under discussion before the Financial Secretary said that the ease of Canada and the United States was different from the case of Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia, using the Port of Beira, because they were entirely landlocked. We say that no Dominion produce should be prevented from receiving the benefits of the Preference because of any geographical position. If obstacles exist, it is not beyond the ingenuity of the hon. Member's Department and his advisers to suggest some way by which it can be overcome.
This matter has been left, unfortunately, in a profoundly unsatisfactory state. Those concerned with the importation of wheat into this country and the movement of grain in Canada do not know where they are in the matter. I noticed to-day that a heavy fall in wheat was recorded on the Winnipeg market, and the reason given for that was the uncertainty in regard to the position in connection with this Bill. As things stand at the moment there is no volume of opinion interested in this matter which is satisfied with the position, and it is imperative that something should be done to clear up the difficulty. Sixty per cent. of the Canadian wheat reaches tidal water by Buffalo and the United States of America. That is a very important part of the Canadian wheat trade, and unless something is done to secure that that trade may follow its present channel and secure the benefit of the Preference, one of two things must happen. Either the wheat will continue
to go as it is carried at present and will not get the benefit of the Preference, and will consequently pay the duty, or it will go over the Canadian lakes to the Canadian railways and on to Halifax and St. John. The difference in cost will be an additional six cents. per bushel before the wheat reaches Liverpool, which will be paid by the British consumer unless, owing to some internal changes in the economy of the trade, the grower in Western Canada will receive six cents, a bushel less for the wheat he grows. At the present time the grower in Western Canada is paid on the basis of the Liverpool price, less the cost of carriage.
It will be seen that nobody stands to get any benefit from this particular arrangement, and no one is satisfied. The dissatisfaction in regard to this matter has increased very greatly because of the allegations that are being made as to the way in which the arrangement was brought about. It is known that there was opposition to this proposal in Canada from the growers, from the Liberal party and from Members of the Cabinet. The statement is made, and it is known, that there has been competition on the great lakes between Canadian lake steamers and American lake steamers, and it is thought by certain interests in Canada that as a result of this arrangement this trade will be taken away from the American lake steamers and put into the hands of the Canadian line steamers. That will make a monopoly and lead to increased cost, which will eventually have to be paid by the consumers of the wheat. The proposal will have the effect of driving the Canadian wheat over the Canadian national railways to Halifax and St. Johns.
The suggestion is made, and it adds to the annoyance of the people who are adversely affected, that the arrangement was not w anted by the British delegates or anyone in this country, but was insisted upon by the Canadian Prime Minister for reasons which were not immune from electoral considerations and that it is part of a ramp to get the grain traffic into the hands of the Canadian line steamers, and to drive the grain over the Canadian lines down to the Canadian seaboard. It is clear that this matter is being left in a very unsatisfactory state from every conceivable point of view. The new Clause is moved
in the hope that it will enable the Government to do something to meet the views of those who are concerned about this matter, and to give some assurance that, even if this Clause cannot be accepted, the Government will devote their minds to the subject in order that a grave danger may be overcome.

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to second the Motion.
I would remind the House that last Monday we had a very interesting discussion, which was initiated not by an hon. Member on this side but by the hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead, West (Lieut.-Colonel Sande-man Allen), and supported by no less a Member than the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell). I should have liked to have had that hon. Member's assistance to-night. He put up an unanswerable case. I would ask hon. Members to turn to the wording of the new Clause. I do not believe that there is one hon. Member in this House, not even the Financial Secretary, who would take exception to the wording of it. It says:
Nothing in this Act shall exclude any goods grown, produced, or manufactured in any part of the British Empire, the Government of which is a party to one of the scheduled Agreements, from the advantages of any preferential arrangements under the provisions of this Act, notwithstanding that they may have passed through the territory of a foreign country in transit.
I understood from what the Financial Secretary said that with the intention of the Amendment which was moved last Monday he was in sympathy, but that he did not see how in practice it was possible to carry it out. Of the articles that are to be subjected for the first time to a tax, wheat is the most important. Therefore, the Government before they came to Parliament and asked that a duty should be put on wheat ought to have gone into the matter further and to have seen whether it was possible to carry out their intention without imposing a tax on Empire wheat. In view of the fact that there are immense supplies of wheat in Canada, there ought not to be a rise in the price of wheat and flour.
I would remind the Committee of a peculiarity in regard to the Canadian
wheat trade. For six months in the year the great lakes and the River St. Lawrence are frozen. During the summer months wheat can move freely to Quebec and Montreal, and it comes by American lake steamers from Canadian waters to Great Britain. When the river is frozen up and no steamers are on the great lakes it has been the practice for years past for a great part of the wheat to pass across the frontier into the United States. Another peculiarity of the Canadian trade is that very little of the grain is handled in bags. Most of it goes into cellars, and then through elevators without any human handling. Most of the grain goes over the frontier into the United States, into Buffalo, where, according to the demands of the market and the prices ruling at Winnipeg and Chicago and Liverpool, the grain is moved.
If the new Clause is not passed one of two things will happen. Either the wheat will have to be rushed into Great Britain before the end of October, that is before the Great Lakes are frozen over and before the River St. Lawrence is congested with ice, or it will have to bear the increased railway rates necessary to take it by Hudson Bay or Halifax. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or Vancouver!"] Vancouver is an alternative route, but that only applies to wheat grown west of Winnipeg. I am informed that the price of sending wheat, which is grown east of Winnipeg, across the Canadian Pacific Railway or to the Canadian Northern Railway Harbour would be prohibitive. The same applies to Hudson Ray. There are some people who desire to assist the somewhat hard pressed Canadian Northern Railway, but we are out to protect the consumer here from increased prices, and to look after the interests of the Canadian grower, who is going to be deprived of the facilities of the American railways. There are in Canada and on the border about 5,000 elevators, and the whole of this organisation is going to be disturbed. I suggest that it is not impossible for a certificate to be given by the Canadian Government for such wheat as is sent through the American railways. Canadian wheat which goes to America at present is in bond, there is a duty on Canadian wheat in America, and, therefore, the problem presents no serious difficulty.
If His Majesty's Government are in earnest and are not being exploited by the Canadian railway and shipping interests, if they are prepared to assist the Canadian farmer and give to the English consumers the advantage of the shipping companies of the world, and a free use of American railways, there is no difficulty in regard to the customs. The customs have far more difficult problems to handle. I agree that the importer must prove his case, he must get a certificate from the Canadian Government, but, if His Majesty's Government are willing to assist, I am satisfied that our new Clause is practicable, and I beg the Government to accept it.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: On Monday last we had a long discussion on the question of wheat. The occasion was an Amendment specifically concerned with wheat grown in Canada and shipped from the United States. The hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen) who moved that Amendment spoke with great personal knowledge and authority and told us that in the winter months the Great Lakes are closed, that the great bulk of Canadian wheat goes to Buffalo into bonded elevators, that any wheat going into America is dutiable, that it, therefore, goes into bond at an elevator and from there on to the train and then to the ship. We learned that last Monday, but I am nevertheless grateful to the hon. Member for reminding me of those details. I was not unconscious of what was said on that occasion because I had to reply, and what I said has been kindly described by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) as having been sympathetic and understanding. But this new Clause is not concerned with wheat at all. The hon. Member for Birkenhead, East has made a long and well informed speech upon the subject of wheat, followed by the hon. Member for Smith-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). This new Clause applies to everything, not only to wheat. My hon. Friend says that it refers to wheat sent from Canada to the United States, where it is put into a bonded elevator and subsequently consigned to this country.
I say that it means something far wider than that. It means one of two things. It may be meant to be a statement of the present law, for it is already permissive upon us to allow a preference
on articles which are consigned here from an Imperial country but which in the course of transit pass through a foreign country. That is the present law; and if the new Clause is meant to be a statement of the present law it is unnecessary. If, on the other hand, it is meant to be mandatory—it is not so phrased—it would strike at the whole principle on which Imperial preferences are based. The test of Imperial preferences is the consignment from an Empire country to this country; we allow the benefit of a preference even though the article in question may have passed through a foreign country. We de allow preference in those cases, but if my hon. Friend means that whatever is sent from an Empire country which may go to a foreign country and then be subsequently reconsigned to this country should enjoy a preference, he would render our whole system of preferences impossible to administer.
The object of a preference is to encourage direct trade between one Empire country and another. We wish to have direct trade with Canada and anyone who wishes to enjoy a preference must observe the conditions. When we were discussing the Bill at an earlier period it was made plain that goods consigned from any part of the British Empire to which this Bill applies, no matter what territory they passed through, provided it was a, direct consignment, should enjoy the preference. We said that not only in Sub-section (1) of Clause 2, as regards the Dominions who were parties to the Agreements, but we said it as regards the Colonial Empire, with the one exception to which reference has been made in Sub-section (6), namely Southern Rhodesia, which being landlocked must use a port outside its Own particular territory, the Port of Beira in Portuguese East Africa. Even then we only put in that exception because we had this safeguard, that Southern Rhodesia does actually maintain a Customs officer at Beira. That is its only method of egress to the sea. There are no great shipping facilities there, and Southern Rhodesia has to store goods there where they are supervised by a representative.
Canada is not landlocked, and is in an entirely different position. There is no reason why wheat should not be shipped
from Canada. Even though I had looked into the point with a view to meeting the hon. Member if it were at all possible, there was a great Customs difficulty. You could not identify this wheat. It would be almost impossible in practice to do it. I gave the hon. Member these reasons last week, and I can only repeat them to-day. My hon. Friend's constituents are fortunate in having so persistent a representative, because he has not allowed this matter to be dropped or taken "no" for an answer, but has returned to the charge. I am very interested and instructed to hear what he has said, but while I have sympathy for and understanding of his case, I am quite unable to meet it. At any rate, his Clause would not meet his own point, because it is merely a statement of the Law already adopted.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May we ask exactly what Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 actually means, unless wheat transhipped from Canada via United States can receive the benefits provided? The hon. Gentleman was very clear and explicit in explaining first of all that adequate arrangements had been made to meet the point of my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), and then he concluded by saying that because of certain practical difficulties, the Clause could not apply to wheat. Just where do we stand? Unless Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 really does include wheat, I do not see the point of the Sub-section at all.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Of course it includes wheat. It includes everything that is consigned from an Imperial country to this country, whether if passes through It foreign country or not, though it must he on a direct consignment and have a through bill of lading. If it has these it may pass through the United States and enjoy the preference provided.

9.30 p.m.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The commodity of wheat is, of course, far the most important thing included in the Bill. This particular difficulty which has been emphasised not only by those who are opposed to the Bill as a whole, but by hon. Members who are loyal supporters of the Government in every particular, such as hon. Members from the Merseyside, and even the hon. Member for the City of
London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), who have taken this most rare occasion to express the views of commercial interests in an independent fashion. The Financial Secretary says that the case of Canada is completely different from that of Southern Rhodesia, because Southern Rhodesia is landlocked, and must therefore send the commodity through another port, but for six months in a year Canada is ice-locked, and her position geographically is exactly the same as being landlocked. This Clause deals only with the situation during that part of the year and if the case could have been made in the one instance, I see no reason why special arrangements should not be made for meeting it in the other.
On the last occasion the Financial Secretary said that the remedy for the difficulties was to be found in the storage of wheat. If I am wrong, I hope he will correct me. I have not the OFFICIAL REPORT at hand, but I have a very clear recollection that he said that all this difficulty could be disposed of, and that the arguments of the hon. Members for East Birkenhead and for the City of London could easily be met by the simple process of not shipping the wheat for some months, and storing it in Canada or here. Who is to bear the cost of the accommodation for many months of an enormous quantity of wheat, and, secondly, for the locking up of trade capital that is involved in buying this wheat and leaving it for several months demobilised in these store houses? It will be the same person who will bear the cost of the whole experiment, the consumer.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: But they bear the cost now, when it is stored in the United States.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I understand much wheat is moved during the time when the St. Lawrence is ice-locked through ports in the United States which are not ice-locked. That is one reason why they send it by that route instead of the Northern route. I do not pretend to be a technical expert on this matter, but I do not know of any other reason why this southern route is ever taken. The suggestion that the whole matter can be dealt with by storage must involve, somehow or other, additional expenses, which will have to
be borne by the consumer. The fact of the matter is that the customs difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman refers as being a barrier, and all the other difficulties, simply arise from the fact that this duty is now being imposed. If the duty were not being imposed, none of the difficulties would arise, the wheat trade would not be disturbed, and the hon. Member for the City of London and hon. Members for the Merseyside would be able to rest tranquil, and the course of trade which has gone on very well for many years would continue. Because of the duty which has been forced upon us

by the Canadian Government, which is not desired by any one in this country, which was not proposed by our Government in the interests of any one here, and which is not desired with any unanimity in Canada—because of these unfortunate proposals, the wheat trade, highly organised as it is, is to be upset and all these difficulties, which have not been denied, are to be imposed on this country.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 264.

Division No. 352.]
AYES
[9.34 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Lunn, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Bernays, Robert
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, George Henry
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cove, William G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Curry, A. C.
Danner, Barnett
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd
John, William
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, Rhys John (Westhough[...]
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelty)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lawson, John James
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Leonard, William



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, David Flees (Glamorgan)
Logan, David Gilbert
Mr. Walter Rea and Sir Murdoch




McKenzie Wood.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burghley, Lord
Eastwood, John Francis


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Burnett, John George
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Waiter E.


Albery, Irving James
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Alien, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Elmley, Viscount


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Apollo, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Apsley, Lord
Castle Stewart, Earl
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Atholl, Duchess of
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Bantle, Sir Adrian W. M.
Christie, James Archibald
Everard, W. Lindsay


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cochrane, Command[...] Hon. [...]. D
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Colman, N. C. D.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Cooke, Douglas
Gibson, Charles Granville


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Copeland, Ida
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Craven-Ellis, William
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Goff, Sir Park


Blindell, James
Crooke, J. Smedley
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Boulton, W. W.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gower, Sir Robert


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crossley, A. C.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Greene, William P. C.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dickle, John P.
Grimston, R. V.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Donner, P. W.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Drewe, Cedric
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Duckworth, George A. V.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Duggan, Hubert John
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dunglass, Lord
Hanbury, Cecil


Hanley, Dennis A.
Martin, Thomas B.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mason, Cot. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Harbord, Arthur
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hartland, George A.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Slater, John


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Milne, Charles
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Hepworth, Joseph
Molten, A. Hugh Eisdale
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Smithers, Waldron


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)


Hornby, Frank
Moss, Captain H. J.
Soper, Richard


Horsbrugh, Florence
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Howard, Tom Forrest
Munro, Patrick
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Storey, Samuel


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Strauss, Edward A,


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
North, Captain Edward T.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Nunn, William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pearson, William G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Penny, Sir George
Summersby, Charles H.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sutcliffe, Harold


Jamieson, Douglas
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Templeton, William P.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Thompson, Luke


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Pike, Cecil F.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ker, J. Campbell
Power, Sir John Cecil
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Pybus, Percy John
Train, John


Kimball, Lawrence
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Knebworth, Viscount
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Law, Sir Alfred
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Leckie, J. A.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Levy, Thomas
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Weymouth, Viscount


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Remer, John R.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Robinson, John Roland
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Ropner, Colonel L.
William, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wise, Alfred R.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Withers, Sir John James


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Womersley, Walter James


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


McKie, John Hamilton
Salmon, Major Isidore
Worthington, Dr. John V.


McLean, Major Alan
Salt, Edward W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



Maitland, Adam
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Scone, Lord
Captain Austin Hudson and Major


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Selley, Harry R.
George Davies.


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

FIRST SCHEDULE—(Agreements and Announcement made at the Imperial Economic Conference, Ottawa, 1932.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. COCKS: I am opposed to all the Schedules, but I want first to speak in support of the rejection of this one. I will confine my remarks to that part which deals with the Canadian Agreement. I have been through all the Agreements. Instead of going from bad to worse, we start with the worst and go on to the bad. I think the Canadian Agreement is the biggest fraud on the British public, in the name of Empire, that has ever been perpetrated. I would
like to subject it to a certain analysis. My first reason for objecting to it is that it is absolutely inconsistent with the principles with which Ministers went to Ottawa to come to some agreement. We have heard very often in this House reference to the Debates of last June, when the Lord President of the Council and the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs stated their aspirations. At that time their objects were to strengthen the ties of Empire, to promote freer trade within the Empire and the world. The Lord President of the Council himself said that his object was to bring about reciprocal Free Trade within the Empire, or the nearest approach to it.
Inspired by these high hopes Ministers sailed to Ottawa. I suppose that in front
of their eyes was the vision of our Lady of the Snows, the Golden West. I am afraid that those visions soon perished in the harsh light of reality. When they got to Ottawa the Gracious Lady of the Snows turned out to be Mr. Bennett, and instead of the High Tribunal of the Empire we had what, in the opinion of many people who went there, resembled more a thieves' kitchen. "The vision splendid" faded, and we had the Lord President of the Council in what I think was a cry from the heart saying:
How difficult it is in the kind of discussions inseparable from a conference, to maintain those high ideals and live up to those speeches we often made.… before we came into conference.
Under the Agreement embodied in the Schedule what is it that we are giving to the Dominions As I say, I intend to confine my remarks to Canada but the same thing applies, or can be applied by other Members who speak, to the other Agreements. We have given Canada a preference upon wheat and upon various other natural products including the products of the pig and timber. What are we getting in return? We are not getting that list of 8,000 commodities which Mr. Bennett said he was going to give us and which was supposed to represent, I believe, £40,000,000 worth. When examined by our experts that was reduced to a much smaller figure. We have not got 8,000 commodities, including such interesting items as "Mickey Mouse" and machinery for making "noises off." The list has been reduced to 220 according to the Schedule and these 220 items include some things which do not even exist.
It has been frequently stated in this House that there is one item on that list which has never been seen on sea or land but which is to be sent to Canada free. I mean the item of "electric storage batteries composed of plates measuring not less than 11 inches by 14 inches and I inch thick." These have never been sent to Canada and have never been made in England or anywhere, not even in the realm of fairyland. Anyhow, they are to go into Canada free as a result of this Agreement. It has also been mentioned though I do not like to say things which have been said before in the House that one of the items includes comic journals and periodicals. I suppose
these are to be sent in in order to help the Prime Minister's "Newsletter." Then there is the item of bagpipes which are to go into Canada free. I wonder why these have been included. Is it a compliment to the Prime Minister, or does it indicate a last despairing attempt to retain in the National Government the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) or even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dar wen (Sir H. Samuel)? In any case apparently these are the results we have secured from a Conference at which enormous animosity was developed and at which at times a very bad feeling arose between the representatives of various parts of the Empire. Mr. Mackenzie King who, after all is the leader of a great party in Canada has said:
I do not think we shall see in the British Empire another such conference, for I believe relations came as near to the breaking point as they could come. If the claim… that Mr. Bennett had forced Great Britain to change its fiscal policy was justified, then the Empire was threatened with disruption.
That is the statement of the Leader of the Liberal party in Canada. Another objection which I have to the Schedule is its fraudulent character. Apart from the non-existent items which I have mentioned, what has happened is this, and I do not think that this has been made clear in the course of the Debate. The present Government in Canada for the last two years has clapped enormous duties upon British goods. There were low duties two years ago. Since then, they have put on enormous duties. Then they have slightly reduced those duties but still left the tariff almost insurmountable. I would like to put to the Committee certain figures which have been provided by Canadian importers. It is very difficult to understand these Schedules because there is not only the one ditty, but all sorts of other duties such as dumping duties, exchange duties and so on. But I have here a list compiled by a Canadian importing firm showing the exact difference which the Agreement makes in certain classes of goods.
In Vile case of unbleached cotton fabrics, before 1930 the duty was 13.7 percent. The present Canadian Government put it up to 39.7 per cent. and as a result of the Agreement it has been
reduced to 38.6 per cent. In the case of white cotton flannelettes, before 1930, the duty was only 16 per cent. In 1930 it was put up to 48.3 per cent., and as a result of the Agreement it is 40.60 per cent. The ad valorem duty on cotton printed piece goods before 1930 was 19 per cent. In 1930 it was raised to 48.2 per cent. and as a result of the Agreement it is still 48.2 per cent. Cotton velvets before 1930 had a duty of 17 per cent. ad valorem which was put up to 38.2 per cent. in 1930 and is now reduced to 29.3 per cent.—still nearly twice as much as it was two years ago. Coloured cotton lace before 1930 had a duty of 19.2 per cent. which was put up by Mr. Bennett to 34 per cent. and is now reduced to 33.7 per cent.
Cotton pillow cases were 16 per cent. two years ago and that was put up to 49.3 per cent. but it is now reduced to 47.5 per cent., so that we can sleep more soundly in our beds. Cotton sheets were 16 per cent. before 1930; that was increased to 50.7 per cent. and is now reduced to 48.5 per cent. Cotton novelties—I do not know what they are—had a duty of 21.5 per cent. two years ago which was increased to 49 per cent. and the duty still remains at the same level. Cotton and art silk piece fabrics before 1930 had an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent, which was put up two years ago to no less than 73 per cent. and remains at 70 per cent. Wool blankets were 21 per cent. two years ago and were put up to 92 per cent. and are now 66 per cent.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. COCKS: Yes, but that is three times what the duty was two years ago. Of course, it is a well-known fact that if you are making a bargain you put up the price first and then reduce it slightly. I will not trouble hon. Members with more than two or three further items of this kind. Wool overcoatings were 24 per cent. before 1930 and were put up to 89.5 per cent. and are now reduced to 75.7 per cent. Wool hosiery—and I believe there is an hon. Member who wishes to speak on that subject later, being interested in hosiery—had a duty of 23 per cent before 1930 which was raised to 79 per cent. and has been reduced to 71.7 per cent. as a result of the Agreement. Finally, there are Axminster carpets, on which the duty was 23 per cent. two years ago, but in 1930 it was
put up to 92.5, and it has been reduced, as a result of the Agreement, to 71.5 per cent. I admit frankly that certain trades, such as the chemical trades and the steel industry, have benefited by this Agreement, especially in certain lines which are not made in Canada, but even those benefits are very largely cancelled by the business with Russia, in which our iron and steel trades will be very adversely affected.
The supporters of the Government may say that we are forgetting that there is a Tariff Board to be set up in Canada, which will carry out certain principles in Articles 11 and 12 of the Agreement. To those principles, there are certain exceptions, and the two main exceptions are that Protection by tariffs is only to be given
to those industries which are reasonably assured of sound opportunities for success.
The other exception is:
Special consideration…to the case of industries not fully established.
Therefore, the two industries which are protected in this way are, first of all, the infant industries which are not fully established and, secondly, the adult industries which have great possibilities of success. What remains? That covers a very wide field. Take out the young industries not fully established and the adult industries which have reasonable opportunities for success, and all that remain unprotected art the adult industries which are probable failures. In the case of those industries which have sound opportunities for success we are to be allowed to compete on certain terms, and what are those terms? According to the Agreement, we are to have
full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of the relative cost of economical and efficient production.
I think that ought to be examined. First of all, the Tariff Board must report, and we know very well that Mr. Bennett has done away with the Tariff Commission which existed in Canada formerly because it was not Protectionist enough. Mr. T. W. Page, who was the Chairman of the American Tariff Commission which was supposed to do much the same thing, says, in his book called "Making the Tariff in the U.S.A.":
The application of the difference between costs as a measure of duties is usually impossible owing to the difficulty of finding what the difference amounts to.
There is no such thing as a single domestic cost of production for any commodity. There are almost as many different costs as there are producers; and the question arises, Which should be taken for comparison with a foreign cost to find a standard for measuring duties? If the lowest cost were taken, it might result in no duty at all.
The conclusion cannot be escaped that it is rarely possible to ascertain accurately the difference in costs of production at home and abroad. To use as a basis of a general tariff Act a thing so fleeting, evasive, and shadowy would be neither right nor possible.
That is the summing up of the gentleman who was the head of the United States Tariff Commission.
10.0 p.m.
Surely the result of all this will be interminable arguments about costings, which will lead to a great deal of bad feeling between the various firms and the Canadian Tariff Board. And we must remember that the Canadian manufacturers are complaining at present that most British goods sent to compete with Canadian goods are made by sweated labour. We may think that is so or we may not, but that is the argument of the Canadian manufacturers, who say that the Lancashire cotton industry is conducted by sweated labour. I should like to read these two statements from cotton manufacturers in Canada. The first is a statement issued by the Canadian Cotton Manufacturers' Association:
British textile manufacturers have been exporting large quantities of goods below fair market value and below cost of production. We do not regard with apprehension the Agreement. We have no reason to fear such an investigation, provided it is carried out with comprehension of all the facts.
Then we have Mr. G. B. Gordon, managing director of the Dominion Textile Company, who says:
The present tariff barely compensates for the difference in wage-earnings and overhead costs as between Canada and Lancashire. In addition, we have an extra burden of costs in -the wide diversification of our products and our limited consumption.
There you get a factor which is very difficult to fight. What will happen? You will go before this Tariff Board, and all these things will be brought before it; and it is suggested in a letter which I read in the "Manchester Guardian" that in Canada it is assumed that the Tariff Board is an instrument of the Gov-
ernment. The same article states that tariffs are worked under the instruction of what are called the "James Street" interests of Montreal, financiers indebted to Wall Street, and that not a single Canadian has the slightest expectation that the Board will act scientifically or impartially. On top of all that, according to the Agreement, even if the Tariff Board decides anything, the Canadian Government are not bound to accept its decision. That will mean that all the controversy will be transferred from the Tariff Board to the lobbies of the Canadian Houses of Parliament, and you will have all sorts of trouble. I suggest that this is not likely to end in Imperial unity or in any benefit to the interests of the Empire.
The Agreement is a very disappointing one from the point of view that it absolutely abandons the interests of the coal producers of this country. I know very well that, according to the Agreement, there is a slight increase of 10 cents in the preference on anthracite coal, but there are geographical reasons why that will not be so beneficial as otherwise it might be, owing to the frontier line between Canada and the United States. But not a single thing has been done for bituminous coal, and there is still a tariff in Canada against our exports of bituminous coal. Considering that we have not only agreed to purchase from Canada, under this Agreement, large quantities of her timber and wheat, but that we have agreed also to buy 2,500,000 cwts. of pig products, bacon and ham, from her, one would have thought the Secretary of State for the Dominions might have made an effort to get Canada to agree to buy a quota of coal from us.
Two years ago he went to Canada and said he had an order for coal and that it would need the construction of seven ships to carry it. Now, however, he has made no effort to get an agreement by which Canada will purchase a single knob of coal, and he has abandoned the miners as he has done more than once before in his career. We on this side of the Committee are not opposed to Imperial Preference and to friendship between ourselves and the different parts of the Empire, but we believe that the preference should be a free preference as advocated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and not a locked preference. I am supported in this by a statement,
by one whom I have quoted before in the House, Mr. Mackenzie King, who has put the words so well that I cannot do better than quote them again:
The method of voluntary fiscal concessions made in a spirit of good will is infinitely preferable to the bargaining and blasting policy of the Bennett Ministry. The former allowed trade to flow in free unchecked channels and eliminated the possibilities of friction, whereas the locked agreements now submitted are hard to interpret, difficult to administer, and productive of feelings of discord.
We on this side of the Committee believe that the Canadian Agreement is a betrayal of British interests and of the interests of Imperial unity. We vote for its rejection and we hope and believe that it will he substituted by a better agreement when both Mr. Bennett in Canada and the Prime Minister in this country are hurled from power.

Mrs. TATE: In the unavoidable absence of the hon. and gallant Member for Bootle (Colonel Crookshank) I rise to ask whether sugar machinery is included under Item 84 of Schedule F of the Indian Agreement, and to draw the attention of the Government to the considerable anxiety which is felt by manufacturers of sugar machinery in this country owing to the fact that no preference has been granted them under this Schedule. Up to September last year, sugar machinery entered India free of duty, but since that date a revenue tariff of 10 per cent. has been imposed upon it by the Indian Government. Since the imposition of that duty, there has been a serious falling off in orders to this country, whereas Continental firms have received very large orders. There are many firms specially equipped for the design and manufacture of this machinery in this country. It is rather significant that one of the delegates from India to the Ottawa Conference has, since his return from Ottawa, concluded an agreement to the value of £95,000 c.i.f. with Holland for sugar machinery. I have information concerning other large orders which have gone to Continental firms. The House will appreciate what the receipt of those contracts would mean to firms in this country, as they involve many subcontracts for castings, pipes, electrical fittings, and so on. A sur-charge of 10 per cent. over and above the existing
10 per cent. duty would ensure a fair proportion of such work coming to the United Kingdom, and, in view of the fact of these large orders having gone to the Continent, I would like the assurance of the Government whether or not sugar machinery can be included under Item 84 of Schedule F.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) has discussed his case so forcibly that I hope that some supporters of the Government will come into the Lobby with us to vote for the rejection of this Schedule. I want to concentrate on the Agreement entered into with India. During the Second Reading Debate, I raised the question of that Agreement with reference to the importation of iron and steel free into this country. I put a certain interpretation upon the Agreement, but the representatives of the Government on the Front Bench were unable then to give me a reply. When later the President of the Board of Trade replied to the discussion, and touched the question of India, I asked him what the Agreement was so far as iron and steel were concerned. The reply I received was that I was under a misapprehension and that if I called on the President he would discuss the matter in order to show me that I was under a misapprehension. The hon. Member for East Leyton (Sir F. Mills), who was connected with the Ebbw Vale Iron and Steel Works for a large number of years, as I was, and other steel manufacturers in the House, were very much alarmed at the Agreement if our interpretation were right.
The President of the Board of Trade was unable to see the deputation, but he arranged for one of his officials to meet us. I want the House and the country to understand—to use a phrase of which the Dominions Secretary is very fond when replying to speeches from this side—what this Agreement really means. The official informed us that the interpretation that I had put on it was the correct one. What happened Twelve days before the deputation from this country arrived in Ottawa the steel manufacturers of this country and those of Canada met and discussed the question of the iron and steel trade, and entered into an arrangement which afterwards they submitted to the delegation from this country which was attending the Ottawa
Conference, and the only thing the Government representatives did was to accept that arrangement, and we are now ratifying it in this House.
The same thing happened so far as India is concerned. A representative from India representing the Tata Company and a representative of this country met and discussed the question of the export of the surplus stock of iron and steel from India, iron and steel manufactured by sweated labour, into this country. What was that arrangement? The Government have decided to impose a tariff of 331 per cent. on steel bars imported into this country from France, from Belgium and from Germany. Those steel bars are manufactured into galvanised sheets and also tinplates. According to the latest figures, the import of steel bars from France and Belgium into South Wales amounts to something like 12,000 tons per month, and if we take the duty at £1 per ton, though it is more than that, the Treasury to-day is receiving revenue from them at the rate of £150,000 per annum. That revenue is received as a result of the duty on French and the Belgian steel imported into South Wales.

Mr. PIKE: Why do you not buy it from Sheffield instead?

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Because we can manufacture it in South Wales ourselves. That is the arrangement so far as Belgian and French steel is concerned. The tariff was imposed in order that the members of my trade in South Wales should be set to work, that the furnaces should be started and the mills set going; but under this Agreement we are allowing Indian pig iron and Indian steel bars to be imported into South Wales free of charge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If the object of the Government in imposing this tariff on Belgian and French steel was to set my men to work—and there are men who are still idle—why should this Indian steel be allowed to come into South Wales free? Will hon. Members say "Hear, hear!" to that? They do not reply to that invitation. This arrangement whereby pig iron and steel bars from India are to come in free has been made without consulting any of the representatives of the men here. It has been done privately. I want to ask the Government whether the agreement entered into
between the representative of this country and the representative of the Tata Company is available to members of this House? Shall we know what is the agreement that has been entered into by two private individuals, one representing capital in India and the other representing capital in this country? If you put it another way, you could say that English capital has been represented in India and Indian capital is represented in this country, and that these two interests have entered into an arrangement, irrespective of the welfare of the iron and steel workers of this country, as long as they could get dividends in this country or in India.
I would like to know why the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones), who has been championing the cause of the steelworkers of this country, has been so silent during this Debate? He has not spoken at all, either on the Second Reading or in Committee. He has been advocating the claims of the steel employers in this country for a tariff on imported steel. Why has he been so quiet? The other day I was asked to withdraw because I stated that he was making "misleading" statements. I cannot use that word to-night. If he will look up the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that he said that we have the most efficient steel productive plant in the world, that our men are paid the highest wages in the world and that our men have the shortest hours and the best conditions in the world. That is what he said to the Members of this House and to the country.
What are the Government ratifying today? Instead of ratifying an agreement to benefit men working under the conditions stated by the hon. Member for West Swansea, the Government are going to ratify an agreement that was entered into to allow people who have the lowest wages, the longest hours and the worst conditions in the world, to send iron and steel into this country. Why is the hon. Member for West Swansea not here protesting against it? Where is he? [Interruption.] I want to know!
I have not gone into details. On the Second Reading I did go into details about the development of the iron and steel industry of India. I gave figures of the exports and imports of that country. Now, before this Committee
and before the country, I want to protest against this Agreement. If there is any hon. Member sitting on these benches, or on the benches on the other side, who represents a steel or iron centre, I challenge him to go to his constituency and defend this Agreement before the working men. Anybody, I do not care who he is, that is representing a steel and iron centre, I challenge to go to that constituency and defend this Agreement with the steel and iron workers. I have given my explanation, and, feeling sure that my interpretation is correct, I am going into the Lobby to vote for the rejection of the First Schedule to the Bill.

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths) has been rightly jealous of the interests of the unemployed in his area. The Government take the view that the unemployed in any part of the United Kingdom are materially assisted by the improvement of trade conditions generally, and it is because the whole policy of these agreements is, in the opinion of the Government, one which will be likely to affect trade generally, that they think that it will necessarily affect advantageously the lot of the unemployed of Pontypool. The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mrs. Tate), asking a question on behalf of the hon. and gallant. Member for Bootle (Colonel Crookshank), asked whether certain types of sugar machinery benefited from the preference under Paragraph 84 of the Indian Agreement. I do not think that that sugar machinery comes within that particular heading of the Indian tariff. I am sure the hon. Lady will realise that, while there are things in these Agreements which were obtained as a result of discussion at Ottawa in regard to which one would have looked for the inclusion of an advantage, it was not possible, in the time available and in view of the different interests, to do more than secure the best that was possible in the circumstances.
I now come to the speech of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), who started the discussion on this subject. His speech was a very caustic comment on the whole Agreement with Canada. He saw nothing good in it at all, but saw very considerable disadvantages to this
country, and his proposal was that this part of the Schedule should be cancelled. As I understood the burden of his argument, it was that this country had given too much and secured too little, and for that reason he desired that the Canadian Agreement should be omitted from the Schedule. I want him just to appreciate the position. We have already, in the earlier stages of this Bill, imposed duties. It is under the Canadian Agreement that advantages are to be secured. If there were anything in the hon. Member's argument that we had given too much and secured too little, he would hardly assist himself, having already taken part in discussions on a Bill which imposed duties, by declining to accept that part of the Bill which gave advantages to this country. That would seem to be entirely contrary to his own argument.

Mr. COCKS: I object to both sides of the Agreement.

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, but the hon. Member does not follow that, by removing the Canadian Agreement, he would do nothing to remove any one of the duties that have been imposed, because, under the scheme of this Bill, those duties are in force if any of the Agreements stand, and, in point of fact, there is no single duty which the United Kingdom has undertaken to put on and which is referred to in the Canadian Agreement that is not also referred to in other Agreements. Consequently, the effect of excluding the Canadian Agreement from the Schedule would be entirely nugatory, and would not lead to any of the results which the hon. Member desires.

Mr. COCKS: Although my speech was directed to that point, that is not all that is before the Committee. I did intend to move to that effect, but it was ruled out of order. My speech was against all the Schedules and all the Agreements.

10.30 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I entirely understood the hon. Member, but it will be within the recollection of the Committee that he founded the whole of his speech on his objection to the Canadian Agreement, which, to use his own words, he said went from worse to bad. I was encouraged by that, because be found so little about the worst to complain of that I thought the bad must be comparatively good. So far from taking the view
which the hon. Member seems to share of the Canadian Agreement, we, of course, are of opinion that that Agreement presents very solid advantages to this country. I noticed that the hon. Member said nothing about the 132 cases where duties are reduced, the 79 cases where the United Kingdom has free entry for the first time, and the 83 modifications in the direction of increased preferences. Very little was said on that subject, and, inasmuch as the proposal to remove any one of these Agreements from the schedules could obviously only be a wrecking Amendment, there is no alternative but to ask the Committee to reject it.

Mr. PICKERING: My reason for speaking on this Schedule is that a bargain has been made and the people of this country have been asked to pay a big price in the shape of additional taxes on food, wheat, meat, raw material and, indeed, on cod liver oil. Even though our Ministers and delegates have tried to belittle this, there is no doubt that a great price has been asked of the people of this country. Now the people, especially those in my constituency, want to know what they are getting on the other side. I am not speaking in favour of the Ottawa Agreements. I am speaking of a bargain having been made. The people of Leicester are vitally interested in this because the hosiery industry is one of those most concerned in these negotiations. The whole hosiery industry in Leicester is utterly dissatisfied with the Ottawa Agreements, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will not come forward with any letter that has been received from some Leicester manufacturer saying that the industry is going to have a great boom because an order has been received for, say, a suit of rose-coloured underwear from Mr. Bennett.
The Leicester industry feels that it has not been properly treated in this bargain. Up to a few years ago the imports of hosiery and knitwear into Australia were very considerable. In 1925 they were £1,500,000, despite the fact that there was a very heavy duty. Now, owing to the great increase in the duties, the trade has fallen to £145,000. Cotton stockings sent from England at 7s. 6d. a dozen have to pay a total duty, ad valorem and specific, of 30s., or 400 per cent. On
wool stockings at 15s. a dozen the duty is not so high. It is 166 per cent. There has been this great fall in exports because the hosiery manufacturers could not possibly compete against such prohibitive duties. But even before Ottawa they did not ask that all duties should be removed. They only asked for the removal of the specific duty. They said that nothing short of the abolition of the specific duty would permit the entry of their goods.
Our hosiery manufacturers in Leicester were prepared to compete with the Australian industry with a duty of 421 per cent. against them, and remember. it was not because we had a low rate of wages in Leicester. The basic rate of wages in the hosiery industry in this country is as high as, or higher than that in any part of the Empire. In spite of that fact, owing to our efficiency, and to the fact that our industry has grown up under Free Trade, we are able to send our goods into Australia provided there is no higher duty than 50 per cent. against us. We hoped, when we heard what we were giving to Australia, that some reduction would be made. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, some reduction has been made. The amount offered is a Preference of from 5 per cent. upwards, but in no case higher than 75 per cent. below the most-favoured foreign country. It still leaves a prohibitive duty of about 200 per cent. against British hosiery.
In Canada we had a very big trade. Two years ago the duty was 30 per cent. ad valorem before Mr. Bennett came into power, and we could compete then because of our greater efficiency. Under Mr. Bennett's regime, when everything was sacrificed to the interests of the manufacturers, the duty was increased by a specific duty of a dollar per dozen, with a rebate of 10 per cent. for shipment to Canadian ports. We were stated to he having a slight preference then, because they put the duty on goods from foreign countries slightly higher. That means that on footwear sold at 11s. a dozen pairs the duty, plus what is called dumping or exchange duty, is 70 per cent. So that even in respect of the rather expensive goods the actual tax on our imports is 70 per cent. In the case of a cheaper article—and certain articles in that line are made at 5s. a dozen—the duty sometimes totals 120 and 130 per cent. As the result of the sweat of the brow of, and the burning of the midnight oil by,
the British representatives at Ottawa, the specific duty has been dropped by 25 cents, so that now, instead of 120 or 130 per cent., the duty in the case of the cheaper articles is about 100 to 110 per cent. This is still absolutely prohibitive.
The high duty which Mr. Bennett put on was at once effective, and it hit our hosiery industry very hard indeed. In 1929–30 the hosiery imports into Canada amounted to £844,600. They fell in the next year to £584,000, a drop of £260,000. That was not due to the slump only. Our total imports into Canada in 1929–30 were £2,500,000. The next year the value dropped by £400,000, of which amount a drop of £260,000 was in connection with the hosiery industry. Therefore, our people have been particularly interested in what sort of a bargain would be made. But no bargain has been made. It has been so arranged that the foreigner is kept out and British goods cannot get in. A two-headed halfpenny is still a fraud, even when one of the heads is slightly smaller than the other. We have been asked to trust the Tariff Board which has been set up in Canada. That point has been dealt with completely by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks). The Canadians themselves have no intention of allowing that Board to do anything. The textile manufacturers, speaking through their authoritative journal, the "Canadian Textile Journal," say that the common sense of the Canadians will prevent the destruction or the serious dislocation of their textile industry, but that it will be necessary for those industries to organise to maintain their position. Their position, as I put it, is one of unscrupulous inefficiency.
Our manufacturers in Leicester and the whole of the hosiery industry are so dissatisfied that they have resolved not to say anything, because nothing can be done. They have, however, as an official gesture, sent a cable to Mr. Bennett, which shows the official feeling in the trade in regard to the much-belauded preference that we have received. The cable says:
National Federation of Hosiery Manufacturers' Associations, representing 90 per cent. of the hosiery and knitwear industry of Great Britain, while recognising your valuable efforts to promote inter-Imperial trade by concessions to other industries notes with profound disappointment and
surprise the meagre reduction of the specific duty on socks and stockings provided for in Ottawa Schedule and would respectfully refer you to Federation's letters"—
They then refer to certain letters that they have sent from time to time—
your replies to which, coupled with the provisions of the preliminary Agreements reached at Ottawa, justified the assumption that evidence of your desire to implement the undertaking to allow British goods to enter Canadian market on competitive basis might be forthcoming in the shape of the total abolition of such duty.
They are only asking that the specific duty should be abolished. [HON. MEMBERS: "What was the reply?"] There has not yet been any reply except that a few days later an official communication was received from the office of the High Commissioner of Canada stating "that owing to the fall in the pound 68 cents would be the tax on every pound's worth of goods sent, in the first half of November, over and above the ad valorem and specific duties." Mr. Bennett is the product of a country where high protection rules. He is not a national statesman, still less is he an Imperially-minded statesman.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The rule in this House is that hon. Members do not make insinuations against statesmen of the Dominions.

Mr. PICKERING: I will, of course, withdraw. I am so convinced of the impossibility of these conditions imposed upon our people—they get absolutely nothing out of them—that I shall vote against the Schedule.

Mr. MANDER: I desire to associate myself with the rejection of the First Schedule. It is a thoroughly bad one. I have no objection to making bargains with the Dominions or with foreign countries—that is almost inevitable in the future—but I do object to making a bad bargain, and I think that this is an extremely bad bargain and one which I hope will not be carried. As far as my own constituents are concerned, who are interested in locks and keys and traps and such things, they get very little out of this Agreement—and they give a great deal away. The main point to which I desire to draw attention is the position in which the lead industry is placed. In Article 3 of this Schedule it is laid down that
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom undertake that the general ad
valorem duty of 10 per cent, imposed by Section 1 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, on the foreign goods specified in Schedule C shall not be reduced except with the consent of His Majesty's Government in Canada.
Before consenting to a power of that kind being given to the Dominion it is necessary to consider what has happened in regard to lead since the Import Duties Act was passed. At that time a duty of 10 per cent. was put on foreign lead coming into this country, arid up to the present advantage has been taken of it by the Dominion producers. The 10 per cent. duty has been something like 22s. a ton, and a premium has been asked on Dominion lead varying from half the duty up to 15s. and between 15s. and 7s. 6d. per ton, a very heavy charge. It is significant that this rate, which has been round about 7s. 6d. for the last few weeks, to-day for the first time has gone down to 2s. 6d., and it is perfectly clear that it has been put down in view of the Debate taking place in this House to-night. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who laugh are not so well informed on this matter as I am. I have information direct from those in the trade who know exactly what they are talking about. The Dominion suppliers of lead to this country have a monopoly. They have complete control of the imports of lead from Australia and Canada, and they are determined to use all the power which the imposition of this new duty gives them to extract all the tribute possible from the lead consumers of this country, and there is very strong feeling indeed on the part of the consumer.
Perhaps hon. Members who have ventured to laugh will listen to the arguments that were used in the Debate last February by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) who was so exhausted by his efforts last night in supporting the Government that I suppose he is not able to be here now. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) raised exactly the same point I am raising. He pointed out that an exaction was being imposed, and that advantage was being taken of this duty to make the lead consumers pay more than they ought to pay. Hon. Members strongly pressed on the Government the seriousness of the position. They pointed out that it was a monopoly which was trying to use its power to increase the price to
the consumer, and they moved an Amendment that lead should be put on the Free List. That Amendment was withdrawn on a specific undertaking by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I will quote to the House. He said:
We have made it clear in previous statements on this Bill that the Government did not intend to tolerate any undue exploitation of the consumer by those who are benefiting by the imposition of the Import Duties.…I will further say that if the facts should be shown to be as my Noble Friend has put them to the House the Government themselves will not hesitate to take action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1932; cols. 680–81, Vol. 262.]
What has the Chancellor been doing about it, and what are the Government going to do about it? Since that Debate, up to the present time, the lead consumers—very representative people—who buy lead for the manufacture of batteries in this country, have communicated on two occasions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on eight occasions with the Advisory Committee and on one occasion with the President of the Board of Trade. They have, no doubt, received perfectly polite replies, but no satisfaction whatever have they been able to obtain. In fact, they have got the impression that no serious attention is being given to the strong case they have made out. The United Kingdom consumption of lead is 200,000 tons a year. That could all be supplied from the Dominions, no doubt. If you take a moderate rate of premium which they have been asking, 7s. 6d.—I am not going to put it at the 15s. which they were asking at one time—that is an exaction of £75,000 a year for the benefit of these Dominion interests placed on the lead consumers of this country. Is not that exploitation? I hope the Minister who replies will say, in the terms of the Chancellor's undertaking, whet her that is undue exploitation or not and if it is—and this exaction of £75,000 a year is clearly one—I should like to know what steps the Government are going to take to carry out their promises after this long time?
The position is very serious from the point of view of exports. I will give one specific case where a British manufacturer had been exporting to a licensee in Italy lead oxide for the purpose of manufacturing batteries. Since the duty, he has received information from Italy that the extra charge has made it im-
possible to go on buying the British oxide any more, and that they will probably set up a, factory in Italy and the people who were employed in this country manufacturing lead oxide for Italy will be thrown out of work as a direct result of the way in which this scheme is working.
I want to call attention to another portion of this same problem. In this Agreement it is stated that there is a safeguard in Article 4. That Article says that if at any time Empire producers of lead are unable or unwilling to offer these commodities on first sale in the United Kingdom at prices not exceeding the world prices, and in quantities sufficient to supply the requirements of United Kingdom consumers, then the Government can take action. The term "world price" has absolutely no meaning. It has a general meaning, of course, but specifically in terms of business, it has no meaning. Action is required to put that point right.
Then, with regard to "first sale," there is no safeguard. There is nothing to prevent these people putting up an intermediary body to whom they will make the first sale, or making the first sale to some subsidiary concern of their own. I suggest that in order to protect these very important interests the Government should do what they have done in the case of copper—call a, conference of the producers and consumers, and try to give the real safeguards which are not found in the Bill at all. The safeguards will be these. That the world price should be defined as the London Settlement price, which is published daily, which anyone can read and about which there can be no possible dispute; and the first sale should be a sale by producers or their bona fide agents to any consumer. If those definitions could be obtained, the safeguards now in the Bill, which are wholly illusory, would be of some value.
I hope that the Government will take steps to implement the very specific undertaking that was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be far better, of course, to withdraw the duty altogether, but if the Government are not prepared to do that they ought to see that there is no advantage taken of the powers that are given to the monopoly to which I have referred. My hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) referred to a concession with regard to lead plates imported into Canada. The great concession that has been obtained in the case of Canada is that plates 14 inches by 11 inches by inch thick shall be allowed to go free into Canada. But no such plates exist; they never have existed; and so far as I know they are never likely to exist. I do ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the Committee and those in the trade, who are entitled to know, exactly what benefit they are supposed to get by a perfectly ludicrous practical joke of this kind. These points are points of great importance to one of the greatest trades of the country, and they call for some reply.

110.0 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: At this late hour of the evening I still feel compelled to say that there are some matters in this very important discussion which require elucidation by the Government, and I take the opportunity of rising for this reason: The question which I put on a previous occasion has not been answered, and I regard that as indicating a lack of desire on the part of those who promoted these Agreements, to rectify a definite mistake——

Mr. A. BEVAN: On a point of Order. The Debate on this subject has lasted the whole evening, and, except for a very short time, no Member of the Cabinet has been on the Treasury Bench. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, was here for about 10 minutes. The Committee is not being treated with proper respect and members of the Ottawa delegation ought to be in their places during these discussions——

Mr. JOHNSTONE: On a point of Order. Upon what Motion is the hon. Member seeking to raise his point of Order?

Mr. BEVAN: I will move to report Progress.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to forget that we are working under a Time-table Resolution and I am not empowered to accept a Motion of that kind. As to his point of Order it is not in my power to compel the attendance of Ministers.

Mr. BEVAN: While it is true that the Chairman has no power, surely the Com-
mittee has power to enter its protest against the manner in which it is being treated by Ministers of the Crown.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Committee has no power whatever because the House has passed a Resolution prohibiting me from accepting any dilatory Motion and has thereby removed any rights which the Committee might have in that respect.

Mr. COCKS: While not casting any reflection upon your personal conduct, Captain Bourne, would I be in order in moving that you leave the Chair in order to call attention to the conduct of Ministers in this respect?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, because the House has declared by Resolution that no dilatory Motion and no Motion to report Progress can be accepted, unless moved by a Member of the Government, and as the hon. Member is not a Member of the Government he cannot move it.

Mr. BEVAN: I regret that the House of Commons has no longer any control over the Government, but I submit that in carrying the Guillotine Motion it was not intended to give power to the Government to treat this Committee with the lack of respect which has been characteristic of this Debate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That may be so. but it is not a point of Order.

Mr. JANNER: I am sorry that the apple of discord has been thrown into this Debate, but I will come immediately to the apple of discontent as far as we are concerned and deal with the question of apples under this Schedule. The statements of those who have attempted to reply to the arguments advanced earlier on this point, indicate that there is no possibility of gain coining to anyone in this country or the Dominions in respect of certain periods during which these duties are to be imposed. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will listen to me because they may find that what they take for granted as being correct, coming from the Treasury Bench, is not bound of necessity to be correct. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is not in his place because he said that there was a plentiful supply of apples to be obtained from Canada and that there was no neces-
sity to go outside the British Empire for the supplies required in this country. I have a great respect for his opinion but I would draw his attention to something which is more authentic than any such statement. I have taken considerable trouble to satisfy myself whether the statements put forward are correct and I have here a bulletin issued by the Markets Branch of the British Columbia Department of Agriculture. It is interesting to hear what they have to say about the apple crop and about the supplies that are likely to come to this country in the near future. They say:
The present rush to market apples in the United Kingdom is responsible for the slip in prices and this rush is not warranted in view of the following conditions: Nova Scotia's export crop is greatly reduced by recent misfortune; Ontario has little more than will supply her domestic market; Washington's crop is greatly reduced by worm injury, the leaving of unpopular apples on the trees and the decision not to ship Cee grade apples this year. The scramble at all points to sell for immediate cash at the time the British crop is being offered for sale has resulted in a flooding of the market at the present time, and the logical outcome of this situation will be a scarcity of winter apples to supply the demand until the next crop is ready. We feel safe in predicting that after the present overload all markets will strengthen and remain strong until the arrival of the Australian, New Zealand and South African crop.
I was under the impression that the Government were not prepared to rectify mistakes. This, which is a definite statement from an authentic quarter, indicates that we shall shortly be faced with a position where we shall not be able to obtain anything in the nature of the necessary supplies of apples. [Interruption.] It may be a matter of no concern to Parliament, but I should like to point out that if that is so, there was no earthly reason why a duty should have been placed upon this commodity, particularly during periods when it could not possibly be obtained from Empire sources. It is definitely a mistake, allowing for all the frailties of those who were at the Ottawa Conference, and I still say——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is now developing an argument against a point that has already been decided, namely, whether there should be a duty on apples.

Mr. JANNER: I am using this as an illustration to show that there are mistakes in these Agreements, and furthermore I am using it to indicate that these mistakes ought to be rectified, and——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member might have developed that argument on Clause 1, but it is now too late.

Mr. JANNER: If you rule that, Captain Bourne, I will put it in this way, that the Agreements as a whole, having a series of defects, ought not to be accepted and that we should vote against the acceptance, of this Schedule. I hope that the Committee will accept the view in all seriousness because it is of great importance, even at this late stage of the proceedings, that arguments should be made against the suggestions which have been directed against these Agreements from all sides. I want to point out with regard to the answers which were given in respect of periods when climatic conditions and other considerations make it impossible to obtain certain commodities which are referred to in the Agreements, that those periods made a substantial difference to our supply, and that consequently we could be placed in a position where the consumer would have to pay more. Those circumstances have not been explained, and I would like to have a definite explanation of them. The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs said that it did not matter; we advanced the time as far, for instance, as South African oranges were concerned, because we anticipated that anybody who was bringing the oranges from another part of the world would be able to put them into cold storage. That might be his view, but it is not the view of those people who were handling that commodity. They say that you cannot keep oranges in cold storage for anything like

a month. Whatever system is used, you cannot keep them for longer than a week or two weeks.

Sir REGINALD BANKS: On a point of Order. Is it in order for hon. Members opposite to form two deep when addressing the Committee?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am bound to say that I have not noticed that. phenomenon.

Mr. JANNER: We are not perturbed by interruptions because we feel that there is a substantial strength in the case that we are presenting. We ask the Committee, even though they may be in a large majority in favour of any action the Government may take on these Agreements, to consider that there is another side to the question, and that it may be a very important side. I have pointed out that a mistake has clearly been made in regard to apples, and I say it has been made with regard to all the other commodities. It is no good answering that periods exist which can be covered by other supplies when those do not exist, and I would ask in these circumstances that the Government should immediately consider the situation and that the House of Commons should not be persuaded into a blind acceptance of conditions and agreements which will work to the detriment of the consumer and the producer without bringing any advantage to a single Dominion. It is not a question here of the weighing of advantages, it is not a question of one person or one section working for a quid pro quo, but a question definitely of a mistake which is striking a very serious blow at those who are not in a position to say anything.

Question put, "That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 55.

Division No. 353.]
AYES
[11.17 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,W.)
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Albery, Irving James
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portam'th,C.)
Broadbent, Colonel John


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Apsley, Lord
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Atholl, Duchess of
Borodale, Viscount
Burghley, Lord


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Bossom, A. C.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie


Balille, Sir Adrian W. M.
Boulton, W. W.
Burnett, John George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Talton
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Castlereagh, Viscount
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Iveagh, Countess of
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Remer, John R.


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
James, Wing.-Cow. A. W. H.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Christie, James Archibald
Jamieson, Douglas
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Robinson, John Roland


Colfox, Major William Philip
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ropner, Colonel L.


Colman, N. C. D.
Ker, J. Campbell
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cook, Thomas A.
Kimball, Lawrence
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cooke, Douglas
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cooper, A. Duff
Knebworth, Viscount
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Copeland, Ida
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Salmon, Major Isidore


Cranborne, Viscount
Leckie, J. A.
Salt, Edward W.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Levy, Thomas
Scone, Lord


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Selley, Harry R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Donner, P. W.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Draws, Cedric
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Duggan, Hubert John
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Slater, John


Dunglass, Lord
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Eastwood, John Francis
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
McKie, John Hamilton
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McLean, Major Alan
Soper, Richard


Elmley, Viscount
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Maitland, Adam
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Storey, Samuel


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Fermoy, Lord
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Strauss, Edward A.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Martin, Thomas B.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gibson, Charles Granville
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Summersby, Charles H.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meller, Richard James
Sutcliffe, Harold


Glossop, C. W. H.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tate, Masts Constance


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Templeton, William P.


Goff, Sir Park
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Milne, Charles
Thompson, Luke


Gower, Sir Robert
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Grimston, R. V.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Guest. Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Gunston. Captain D. W.
Munro, Patrick
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hanbury, Cecil
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hanley, Dennis A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nunn, William
Weymouth, Viscount


Harbord, Arthur
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hartland, George A.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Pearson, William G.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Penny, Sir George
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wills, Willfrid D.


Hepworth, Joseph
Petherick, M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pete, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Wise, Alfred R.


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Womersley, Walter James


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hornby, Frank
Pike, Cecil F.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.



Howard, Tom Forrest
Pownall, Sir Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Mr. Blindell and Lieut.-Colonel


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)



NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cape, Thomas
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Barfield, John William
Curry, A. C.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur


Batey, Joseph
Daggar, George
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Bernays, Robert
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro',W.)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Edwards, Charles
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pon'y[...]ol)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Grundy, Thomas W.




Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lunn, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thnest)


Harris, Sir Percy
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Tinker, John Joseph


Hirst, George Henry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Holdsworth, Herbert
Mender, Geoffrey le M.
White, Henry Graham


Janner, Barnett
Milner, Major James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Price, Gabriel
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rea, Walter Russell



Lawson, John James
Roberts. Aled (Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Leonard, William
Rothschild, James A. de
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to Customs duties chargeable under Section one.)

Motion made, and Question put, "That this Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 55.

Division No. 354.]
AYES
11.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Drewe, Cedric
Knebworth, Viscount


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Duckworth, George A. V.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Duggan, Hubert John
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Albery, Irving James
Duncan, James A.L.(Kensington, N.)
Leckie, J. A.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Dunglass, Lord
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Alien, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Eastwood, John Francis
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Levy, Thomas


Apsley, Lord
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Atholl, Duchess of
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Elmley, Viscount
Llewellin, Major John J.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Fremantle, Sir Francis
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Ganzonl, Sir John
McCorquodale, M. S.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Gibson, Charles Granville
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Gillett, Sir George Mesterman
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McKie, John Hamilton


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Glossop, C. W. H.
McLean, Major Alan


Blindell, James
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Borodale, Viscount
Goff, Sir Park
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Bossom, A. C.
Goodman. Colonel Albert W.
Maitland, Adam


Boulton, W. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Makins, Brigadier-General


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Ernest Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Grimston, R. V.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Martin, Thomas B.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guy. J. C. Morrison
Mellor, Richard James


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th"d., Hexham)
Hanbury, Cecil
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Burghley, Lord
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Harbord, Arthur
Milne, Charles


Burnett, John George
Hartland, George A.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Campbell, Rear-Adml, G. (Burnley)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hepworth. Joseph
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Carver, Major William H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Moss, Captain H. J.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Munro, Patrick


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hornby, Frank
Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Christie, James Archibald
Howard, Tom Forrest
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nunn, William


Colfax, Major William Philip
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Colman, N. C. D.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Bring)
Pearson, William G.


Cook, Thomas A.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cooke, Douglas
Iveagh, Countess of
Petherick, M.


Cooper, A. Duff
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Copeland, Ida
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Cranborne, Viscount
Jamieson, Douglas
Pike, Cecil F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Ker, J. Campbell
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Kimball, Lawrence
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Donner, P. W.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Titchfleid, Major the Marquess of


Ratcliffe, Arthur
Slater, John
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Remer, John R.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walisend)


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Robinson, John Roland
Soper, Richard
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Roes Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Spencer, Captain Richard A
Weymouth, Viscount


Runge, Norah Cecil
Storey, Samuel
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Strauss, Edward A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Salmon, Major Isidore
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Salt, Edward W.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Summersby, Charles H.
Wise, Alfred R.


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Sutcliffe, Harold
Womersley, Walter James


Scone, Lord
Tate, Mavis Constance
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Templeton, William P.
Young, Fit. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)



Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Thompson, Luke
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Sir George Penny and Lord




Erskine.


NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Haley, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Price, Gabriel


Bernays, Robert
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rea, Walter Russell


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Rothschild, James A. de


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Curry, A. C.
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. C. Macdonald.

Third Schedule (Amendments of 13 Geo. 5, c. 5) agreed to.

Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair 10 report the Bill to the House, pursuant to the Order of the House of 28th October.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — MENTAL TREATMENT ACT, 1930.

Resolved,
That the following Rules, dated 28th July, 1932, made by the Board of Control with the approval of the Lord Chancellor under Sub-section (1) of Section 338 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, as extended by Subsection (2) of Section 21 of the Mental Treatment Act, 1930, which were presented on the 18th day of October, 1932, be approved, namely:

The Mental Treatment (Lancashire Mental Hospital Board) Rules, 1932. S.R.O., 1932, No. 666;

The Mental Treatment (Staffordshire Mental Hospitals Board) Rules, 1932. S.R.O., 1932, No. 667;

The Mental Treatment (West Riding of Yorkshire Mental Hospital Board) Rules, 1932. S.R.O., 1932, No. 668." —[Sir Hilton Young.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS.

Ordered, "That Mr. Bracken be discharged from the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports."—[Sir Frederick Thomson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after hall-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.